Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935, AND GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ACT, 1935.

THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. GRIMSTON) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as followeth:

I have received your Addresses praying that the Government of India (High Court Judges) (Amendment) Order, 1938, the Government of Burma (High Court Judges) (Amendment) Order, 1938, and the Government of Burma (Adaptation of Laws) (Amendment) Order, 1938, be made in the form of the respective drafts laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

GEORGE R.I.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Gateshead and District Tramways and Trolley Vehicles Bill [Lords],

Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

BRITISH COLONIES, PROTECTORATES, ETC. (LOCAL LEGISLATURES).

Address for
Return showing the composition of the local legislatures in the West Indies and in British Guiana and British Honduras, giving in each case the qualifications necessary for voters and the numbers and sex of voters compared to the populations and the numbers of official and unofficial members of each legislature; the numbers of elected and nominated members in each case and, where they are elected members, the qualifications for candidates for election to the legislatures; and similar particulars for all other British colonies, protectorates, protected states and mandated territories, also showing those which have no elected members."—[Mr. Parker.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs particulars of the amount of weekly benefit and/or relief paid to men, women, and children in Newfoundland during the last year; and whether the same is paid in money or kind?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Lord Stanley): The basis of relief in Newfoundland, which is issued in kind, is to provide those in distress with means of supplementing the natural resources, such as fish, poultry and home-grown produce, which are available to the people in most parts of the island. I understand that in St. John's City the cost per head of the relief rations issued ranges from $6.40 a month in the case of a family of three to an average cost of $4 a month in the case of members of larger families. In the country districts the cost per head is approximately $2 a month, apart from the free distribution of vegetables and fuel in districts where this is necessary. These scales represent substantial increases since the Commission of Government took office. The Commission have also improved both the range and the nutritional value of the rations given.

Mr. Day: Do the persons who obtain relief in kind, especially in the outposts, have any option to go to various local stores?

Lord Stanley: I cannot say.

Mr. Paling: As many urban workers in Newfoundland do not grow any of these products for themselves should they not be given money so that they can purchase the things which they do not grow?

Lord Stanley: The method so far adopted in Newfoundland has been to give relief in kind.

Mr. Paling: I am asking why, as there are many urban workers who do not produce these goods, they are not given money to purchase them?

Lord Stanley: The Newfoundland Government think that this is the best way to give relief.

Mr. Day: Is not this method causing considerable discontent?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (TRADE AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the fact that our recent trade agreements with foreign countries are now all terminable on short notice, he will ensure that no trade agreement with the United States of America will tie our hands for a longer period than we are already tied under existing agreements with foreign countries?

The President of the Board of Trade(Mr. Oliver Stanley): I am unable to give the undertaking suggested.

Mr. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend give some assurance that no commitments will be entered into which will paralyse British agriculture for a further period?

Mr. Stanley: We do not intend to enter into any commitments which will paralyse any form of industry.

Mr. Leach: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this request is for short-period agreements, however favourable they may be, and will he turn down so stupid a suggestion?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make concerning the progress of the Anglo-American trade pact negotiations?

Mr. Stanley: I am unable at present to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) on 31st May.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman state approximately when he will be able to make a statement? Will it be before the House rises?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir, I am afraid that I could not.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that during

the Recess no vested interest will stand in the way of an agreement being arrived at between America and Great Britain?

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Captain. Sir William Brass: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the increasing quantities of Indian cotton goods imported into the Dominions and Colonies where they enter under the same terms as exports from the United Kingdom, he will consider asking the Government of India for a reduction of the 20 per cent. Import Duty into India in order that Lancashire manufacturers may trade on equal terms in India as in other parts of the British Empire?

Mr. Stanley: While Indian goods enter the Colonies on equal terms with United Kingdom goods, this is not the case in all the Dominions. India's trade with the Dominions in cotton piece goods is small and her trade in such goods with the Colonies, although it has increased, is still very much less than that of the United Kingdom. As I have previously indicated, the position in Empire markets is being kept in mind in the negotiations between the United Kingdom and India, and one of the major objects in those negotiations is a satisfactory settlement in regard to the United Kingdom trade with India in cotton goods.

Sir W. Brass: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the very serious position in Lancashire at the present time, where the depression is worse than it has been for many years, and where the most important market of all is the Indian market?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, it is for that reason that I say that a satisfactory settlement in regard to these cotton goods is one of the major objectives of these negotiations.

Mr. Dodd: Will my right hon. Friend impress on the Indian Government the importance to India of this country as a market for India's raw cotton?

Mr. Stanley: I have not failed to impress that upon them.

Sir W. Brass: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the growing imports of Indian cotton goods into Ceylon since 1936, and to the declining imports from the United Kingdom into that country during the same period; and whether, in


view of this position, he will consider some modification of the present trade policy?

Mr. Stanley: I am aware that imports of cotton piece goods from the United Kingdom into Ceylon have declined since 1936. Imports from India were greater in 1937 than in 1936, but in the first five months of this year they were smaller than in the corresponding period of the two previous years. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that these facts will be given due weight in considering the trade policy of the United Kingdom.

Sir W. Brass: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the real problem in Lancashire is that they are frightened of the trend, which is for their trade to be taken by other countries such as India, and will he bear that in mind?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Tomlinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the new export plans of the Japanese Government in relation to the cotton industry; and will he take such steps as are necessary to protect the Lancashire cotton industry against this new development?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir. I have been informed of an announcement by the Japanese Government on the subject, but particulars are not yet available. As soon as details are received, I will consider whether any steps are called for on the part of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Tomlinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very great concern felt in Lancashire in view of the inroads which are being made into the home market? We have pretty well lost the foreign market and the home market is in danger now, and will he take the necessary steps to safeguard it?

Mr. Stanley: I would remind the hon. Member and the industry that it is open to them at any time to apply to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for an increase in the duties.

Mr. Burke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Japanese shirts are coming into this country at 9s. 2d. per dozen, which is less than the price of making-up such shirts in this country,

and that it is not merely the quantity of Japanese goods coming in that causes concern, but that the price of them sets the price for the home market?

Mr. Stanley: That is just one of the facts which might very well be brought to the notice of the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Sir W. Brass: Are these exports from Japan subsidised by the Japanese Government?

Mr. Stanley: I could not say.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the exports of cotton yarn to Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands for the first five months of this year are approximately half the amount of such exports for the first five months of 1937; and whether he is satisfied with the working of the trade agreements with those countries in this respect?

Mr. Stanley: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I am advised that the reduction in exports of cotton yarns from the United Kingdom to the countries referred to by my hon. Friend is due mainly to a general slackening of demand in those markets.

Mr. Kerr: Will the right hon. Gentleman make active representations to the Governments concerned?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir, but I do not think that in any of these instances it is a case of our share of the trade being taken by others, but of a general falling off in demand in those countries, and, unfortunately, in many other countries as well.

Mr. Dodd: Since the decline has affected markets for cotton goods as a whole, will the right hon. Gentleman inquire in which markets the major decreases have taken place, with a view to remedying that state of affairs?

Mr. Kerr: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can provide figures showing the value and volume of cotton exports from this country to each of those countries with which


trade agreements have been concluded for the year preceding the date of the agreement and for 1937, respectively?

Mr. Stanley: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Country to which Consigned
Date on which each Agreement came into force
year
Quantity of cotton piece goods.
Total value of cotton yarns and manufactures (excluding apparel and embroidery).







Thousand Square years.
£000.


Germany
…
8th May, 1933
…
1932
28,070
3,264


1st November, 1934
…
1937
31,303
3,604


Denmark
…
20th June, 1933
…
1932
34,791
1,263


20th June, 1936
…
1937
49,549
1,890


Iceland
…
28th June, 1933
…
I932
547
24






1937
203
14


Norway
…
7th July, 1933
…
1932
17,792
869






1937
20,735
1,175


Sweden
…
7th July, 1933
…
1932
19,877
1,064






1937
24,226
1,630


Argentine Republic
…
8th November, 1933
…
1932
115,983
3,299


23rd November, 1933
…
1937
127,021
4,460


20th November, 1936
…





Finland
…
23rd November, 1933
…
1932
2,613
217






1937
9,397
509


Soviet Union
…
21st March, 1934
…
1933
23
1






1937
71
2


France
…
1st July, 1934
…
1933
4,119
351






1937
3,029
403


Netherlands
…
1st August, 1934
…
1933
23,098
1,426






1937
30,308
2,381


Lithuania
…
12th August, 1934
…
1933
2,462
161






1937
6,151
452


Estonia
…
8th September, 1934
…
1933
49
13






1937
360
43


Latvia
…
12th October, 1934
…
1933
2,726
105






1937
4,405
172


Poland
…
14th March, 1935
…
1934
1771
238






1937
2,522
352


Turkey
…
20th June, 1935
…





17th September, 1936
…
1934
13,914
349


1st July, 1938
…
1937
15,391
388


Uruguay
…
3rd February, 1936
…
1935
11,202
404






1937
9,556
488


Peru
…
9th October, 1936
…
1935
7,152
225






1937
6,307
233


Italy
…
16th November, 1936

1935
2,249
92


28th March, 1938
…
1937
2,343
58


Yugoslavia
…
1st January, 1937
…
1936
3,652
307






1937
2,382
236

HERRING INDUSTRY.

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the extensive market for pickled and smoked herring in the British West Indies; whether he is aware that the smoked herring imports into Jamaica from Norway are 10 times the amount sent from this country; and whether,

Following is the answer:

Table showing the total quantity of cotton piece goods and the total declared value of cotton yarns and manufactures, excluding apparel and embroidery, of United Kingdom manufacture exported to the undermentioned countries during the years specified.

through the agency of the Colonial Empire Marketing Board or otherwise, he will encourage the export of West Indian citrus fruits or other produce to Great Britain in return for bulk supplies of pickled and smoked herring?

Mr. Stanley: There is a substantial import of fish into the West Indies, though the market is not at present filled to any


substantial extent by imports of pickled or smoked herring. Imports of smoked herring into Jamaica from Norway in 1937, while they were 10 times the quantity imported from this country, were relatively small, amounting to only £351 in value. I will certainly consider, in consultation with those of my colleagues who are concerned, any suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman cares to make for the development of the trade in United Kingdom herring in the West Indies.

Mr. Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have already made some suggestions in detail, and can he suggest any adequate reason why the Government should continue to contemplate a situation in which 50 per cent. of our herring fishermen are in starvation conditions and 50 per cent. of the citrus fruit workers in the Colonies are in starvation conditions? Why cannot we swop these foods?

Mr. Stanley: The difficulty at the moment is that there is no great consumption of herring in the West Indies. I understand that the major amount of the fish which is imported from Canada and Newfoundland to these islands consists of mackerel.

Mr. Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable export of herring from Canada and Norway to the West Indies? I give the figures for Jamaica only, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a million people who are consumers of fish, salted and cured, in the West Indies?

Mr. Stanley: I shall be glad to do anything I can to increase the consumption of herring in the West Indies.

Mr. Macquisten: Will my right hon. Friend watch and see that there are no dyed herring imported into the West Indies?

Mr. Stanley: I will make certain that they are dead but not dyed.

RUSSIA.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: asked the President of the Board of Trade when the Anglo-Soviet trade agreement is due for revision?

Mr. Stanley: The Temporary Commercial Agreement of 1934 between the

United Kingdom and the Soviet Union continues in force subject to termination after six months' notice by either party. No such notice has been given.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving notice in order to revise the shipping arrangements between this country and Soviet Russia whereby our shipping shall carry more than it does at the present time?

Mr. Stanley: I referred to this matter in the Debate on my Estimates last month, and expressed my dissatisfaction with the present course of these arrangements. I am not prepared at the moment to add anything to that.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is not this agreement a disgrace to British negotiators in giving up all British interests?

Mr. Mander: Why not terminate all treaties?

Mr. Stanley: I would not go so far as the hon. Gentleman, but his Leader, the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) urged me to do so in this particular case.

FLOUR.

Mr. Parker: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps the Government propose to take with regard to the suggestion made by the Food Council in June, 1936, that an independent tribunal be set up to inquire into cases where supplies of flour have been cut off from bakers by millers when the former charge prices below those ruling in their districts?

Mr. Stanley: No case calling for the appointment of such a tribunal appears to have arisen since the date of the Food Council's report.

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade the most recent information his Department has relating to the sack capacity of the flour mills in Great Britain and Ireland; and whether any mills have been closed since those statistics were obtained?

Mr. Stanley: Voluntary returns of sack capacity are supplied by flour millers in the United Kingdom to the Food (Defence Plans) Department, but the information is confidential and not for publication.


While certain mills have been closed during the period that these returns have been collected, extensions have taken place elsewhere and there is at the present time considerable surplus capacity of flour milling over current requirements.

Mr. Day: Is there any information available as to the possibility of changes being made in the storage capacity?

Mr. Stanley: I have given the hon. Member all the information I have. We know that there is a surplus.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government will consider introducing legislation to ensure that all imported flour shall be accompanied by imports of its related offals?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the farmer has to pay as much for offals as he pays for his wheat, and does he not realise that a prosperous countryside transcends everything else in importance? Is it not inexplicable that something has not been done before in this matter?

Mr. Stanley: The facts are that there are a great deal more offals than flour imported.

Mr. Macquisten: Is it not better that there should be no flour imported and that we should all grind our own wheat?

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this whole matter is very unsatisfactory?

BREAD PRICES.

Mr. Parker: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the recent revision of the Food Council's bread price scale is justified by the increased costs of distribution, he will ask the Food Council to follow the example of the Linlithgow Committee and publish the results of their inquiries, so that public opinion on this matter may be adequately informed?

Mr. Stanley: As stated in their report, the Food Council's inquiry disclosed the existence of wide divergencies in the costs of those bakers whose statements of

accounts were examined. In these circumstances, the Food Council considered that the publication of figures would not serve any useful purpose.

AIRCRAFT (EXPORT LICENCES, PORTUGAL).

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the numbers of aircraft and aero engines, respectively, destined for Portugal for which export licences have been granted during the first six months of 1938?

Mr. Stanley: Aircraft engines and civil aircraft may be exported to Portugal under the Open General Export Licence of the Board of Trade. As regards licences for military aircraft, His Majesty's Government, as I have previously explained, consider that it would be contrary to the public interest to give particulars of licences which have been issued for the export of war material to a particular destination.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the Minister satisfied that the aircraft and aircraft engines exported to Portugal remain in Portugal and do not reach General Franco?

Mr. Stanley: Every care is taken, not only in this case but in all others, to inquire into the ultimate destination of these aircraft, as well as the first destination.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Are the aero engines which have been exported types which are obsolete or obsolescent so far as the Air Force is concerned?

Mr. Stanley: That is a different question.

NETHERLANDS.

Mr. Kerr: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, so far as the first five months of this year are concerned, whereas in comparison with the first five months of 1937 the imports of bacon from the Netherlands rose from £869,558 to £939,802, the value of cotton piece-goods imported by the Netherlands from this country fell from £317,550 to £132,552; and whether existing trade arrangements with the Netherlands can be revised with a view to ensuring a better balance of trade in these respects?

Mr. Stanley: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; I would point out, however, that the


quantity of bacon imported from the Netherlands was some 3,000 cwts. less in the first five months of 1938 than in the corresponding period of 1937. As regards the second part, I am satisfied that under the scheme of quantitative restriction of imports into the Netherlands this country is receiving its full share of the quota for cotton piece-goods as provided in the exchange of notes of July, 1934, between the two Governments.

Mr. Burke: Is the Minister not aware that the increased price to be paid for bacon from the Netherlands is due to the increase in the retail prices following the Government's agricultural policy?

Sir W. Brass: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this state of affairs is a result of the reduction in the consumption of cotton goods in the Netherlands and not that these cotton goods are coming from somewhere else?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir, the import of cotton goods into the Netherlands is regulated by a quota system and it is a fact that there has been a general decrease in the consumption.

Mr. Leach: Why is the Minister answering all the easy question and ignoring all the difficult ones?

COMPANIES ACT, 1929 (DECLARA TIONS OF SOLVENCY).

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of cases in which declarations as to solvency have been made by directors under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 1929, and the number of cases in which, following such declarations of solvency, the ordinary shareholders have not in fact been paid in full within 12 months of the declaration of solvency?

Mr. Stanley: I regret that the information asked for is not available. A declaration of solvency relates only to the ability of the company to pay its debts and is not concerned with the question of the return of capital to its shareholders. The question of declarations of solvency is one of the matters which will be considered when the Amendment of the Companies Act, 1929, is under review.

Mr. Bellenger: Is any duty thrown upon the registrar to see that these declarations

are accurate, and is any penalty incurred for inaccurate declarations?

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.

Mr. Leach: When will the amending Bill be forthcoming?

FOOD RESERVES.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the meat purchased for war purposes is being used for supplying the current requirements of the home services?

Mr. Stanley: No change in the arrangements for supplying the current requirernents of the Defence Services has been made as a result of the steps taken by the Government to create food reserves under the Essential Commodities Reserves Bill.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Has there been any increase in the importation of meat for this purpose during the current year?

Mr. Stanley: That is a different question.

Mr. Macquisten: Would it not be better to keep the meat constantly turning over?

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

COASTWISE CARGO SHIPS (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of accidents occurring on coastwise cargo ships for which the ships' officers have been held responsible?

Mr. Stanley: The information available does not enable me to give a full reply. The findings in Formal Investigations under the Merchant Shipping Acts and Boiler Explosion Acts during the last five years have been examined, and there is no case in which an officer of a coastwise cargo ship has been held responsible. I have no statistics as to any judgments of the civil courts which might come within the scope of the question.

SICK AND INJURED OFFICERS AND SEAMEN.

Mr. James Hall: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the general practice of shipowners to stop an officer's or seaman's wages as soon as such person is put ashore through


sickness or injury; that the allotments to the dependants of an officer or seaman are thereby stopped, with the result that the dependants concerned may be reduced to destitution; that in the case of injuries no compensation is paid to the seaman affected until such time as he is landed in the United Kingdom; that certain officers are ineligible for benefits under the Health Insurance Acts; and whether he will initiate remedial measures by way of amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act or otherwise?

Mr. Stanley: The payment of wages and allotments ordinarily ceases when sick or injured seamen have been discharged abroad with official sanction, but provision is made in the National Health Insurance Acts for the payment of benefit to the dependants of insured persons who are left abroad sick or injured. I am aware that many of the senior officers do not come within the scope of the Insurance Acts, but I understand that a number of companies continue the payment of wages and allotments in these cases. Claims for compensation in respect of injuries can only be initiated in this country, but provision is made in the Merchant Shipping Acts for the maintenance, treatment and repatriation of all sick and injured seamen left abroad. In the circumstances I do not consider that a revision of the law is necessary.

Mr. Hall: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that some amelioration of these conditions might be secured for officers and seamen and their dependants? Does he not really think that some legislation should be introduced to deal with these difficulties?

Mr. Stanley: I have given a rather long answer explaining the position, and in view of that position I have said that I do not consider that a review of the law is necessary.

REGISTRATION.

Miss Rathbone: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many ships which are wholly or largely British-owned are registered under the flags of other nations?

Mr. Stanley: The desired information is not available.

Miss Rathbone: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the

policy of His Majesty's Government to discourage the registration under the British flag of ships belonging to companies wholly or largely controlled by nationals of other States?

Mr. Stanley: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply on this subject made to my hon. Friend, the Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) on 28th October last.

Mr. Mander: Is the Minister aware of the danger of ships on the British register being transferred to the American, Dutch and other registries owing to the lack of protection afforded to British ships by the British Government?

Mr. Stanley: This country has afforded ample protection to its ships outside the three-mile limit, and the recognition of that fact has led to a considerable transfer of foreign ships to British registry.

Mr. Mander: If I bring certain facts to the Minister's attention will he be good enough to consider them?

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (TRANSPORT).

Commander Marsden: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in connection with the placing of a contract in connection with the preparation of the ground and approaches to the new Royal Air Force air-field at Lossiemouth, which involved the conveyance of cement pipes from Poole to Lossiemouth, he is aware that such pipes were carried in three Dutch ships, the "Globe," "Eban," and "Hebe Nobel"; and can he assure the House that he will cause instructions to be given to his contracts department to provide that only British ships shall be employed in future coastwise transit?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has made it a condition of any contract to which he is a party that any materials or plant which are delivered by water-borne transport must, wherever possible, be carried in British vessels.

Commander Marsden: When my hon. Friend answers "yes," do I understand that to be in reply to the first part of the question, as to whether the pipes were carried in Dutch ships?

Captain Hudson: Yes, Sir. The facts in this question are accurate. I am speaking of what we are doing for the future.

Mr. Johnston: Why did these pipes have to be transported the long distance from Poole to Lossiemouth?

Captain Hudson: I cannot say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

YOUNG MARRIED SOLDIERS' ACCOMMODA TION (BORDON CAMP).

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the lack of accommodation for young married soldiers at Bordon Camp, where the 800 soldiers under 26 years of age who are on the unauthorised married establishment at this station are paying as much as 15s. a week for a single room; what proportion of such men's pay this payment represents; and whether he has under consideration any scheme which will solve this difficulty?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): The problem of accommodating the families of married soldiers under the age of 26 is one for the local authorities concerned. The problem arises at practically all military stations, and is not peculiar to Bordon, where, I may say, the known number of such cases is not 800 but about 150. I understand that at Bordon the local authorities have the matter under consideration in consultation with the military authorities concerned.

Sir A. Knox: In view of the fact that the conditions in which young married men live act as a deterrent to the enlistment of other men, surely the Department had better not take young married men unless it is able to provide married-men's quarters for them?

Sir V. Warrender: Young men are warned that if they marry under the age of 26 they do so on their own responsibility.

Sir A. Knox: What is the use of warning young men who have already married under that age?

Mr. R. J. Taylor: If the Government are anxious to have the men, why do they not provide for them?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the Minister not aware that this matter has reached the level of a positive scandal all round Aldershot and the neighbourhood, and

will he either take some definite steps or listen to representations which I or other hon. Member's make?

Sir V. Warrender: My hon. Friend could not have heard the last part of my answer, in which I said that the local authorities were in consultation on the matter.

Mr. Nicholson: Is the Minister aware that this matter has been going on for a very long time, and that the scandal, far from decreasing, is increasing?

Sir A. Knox: Surely it is the duty of the military authorities to take steps to deal with it?

Mr. Day: Are not many of the wives and families of these men receiving public assistance?

COURTS-MARTIAL (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. Batey: asked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to receive the report from the committee considering the question of courts-martial?

Sir V. Warrender: I understand that the committee expect to be in a position to submit their report next month.

Mr. Batey: Next month?

BREN GUN.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for War when the first trial of the Bren gun took place in this country and what other guns were tried out against it; on what date the gun was accepted for use in the British Army; when the first deliveries of the gun were made; what is the rate of delivery at the present moment; when it is expected that the machine-gun at present in use in the British Army will be entirely replaced by the Bren gun; and whether any royalty or licence is payable to any foreign Government or firm in respect of the Bren gun?

Sir V. Warrender: The first trial in this country of what was then known as the Z.B. gun took place in 1930, and, after comparative trials with a considerable number of other types between 1930 and 1935, the Bren pattern was adopted in the latter year. As I informed the House on 13th July, the first deliveries of British manufacture were made in September, 1937, but I trust the hon. and gallant


Member will not press for any information as to present and future deliveries. A royalty is paid to the patent owners in Czechoslovakia.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman state the amount of the royalty and which firm are the patentees?

Sir V. Warrender: It would be against the general practice to disclose the amount of the royalty. The name of the patent owners is the Ceskoslovenska Zbrojovka.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the fact that the design was adopted in 1935, what is the reason for the delay in the manufacture of these guns?

Sir V. Warrender: There has been no delay in the manufacture of these guns. In 1936 it was stated in this House that deliveries would commence in the autumn of 1937, and they did so.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is not the cost of manufacturing the guns rather high, as much as £;76 per gun being quoted?

Mr. Muff: Would the hon. Gentleman send a Bren gun to the York military depot so that they will know what a Bren gun looks like?

WILLINGDON COMMITTEE'S REPORT.

Mr. Kimball: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the anxiety caused to serving officers by the publication of unofficial reports of the scheme for accelerated promotion and consequent retirement of officers; and whether he is now in a position to make an announcement of the action proposed to be taken in this matter?

Sir Cooper Rawson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he intends shortly to give effect to the recommendation of the Willingdon Committee on service and promotion in the Army?

Sir V. Warrender: My right hon. Friend will make an announcement on this subject as soon as possible.

Mr. Kimball: In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for War, answering questions in this House, said that he hoped to be in a position to make a statement very soon, may we hope that the question will be answered before the House rises next week?

Sir V. Warrender: I would not like to give a definite guarantee. There is a large number of questions affecting other Services besides the Army.

SURPLUS WAR MATERIAL (SALES TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for War particulars and the names of the individual foreign countries that have purchased surplus war material from Great Britain during the two years ended to the last convenient date; and the amount of and quantities of war materials so purchased?

Sir V. Warrender: It would not be in the public interest to disclose the names of the individual foreign countries to whom, or for export to whom, His Majesty's Government dispose of surplus war material. It would also be contrary to the general practice to disclose the values of particular sale contracts.

Mr. Day: Am I to understand that the surplus war material is also obsolete?

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institute is responsible to his Department; what has been its income, expenditure, and profits in the last five years; the total number of men and women employés, respectively; the percentage of the men and women five years ago and now; how many of the men and women, respectively, live in; whether they are allowed to join a trade union; what are their wages and hours of work; and how their conditions of employment are negotiated?

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Secretary of State for War the weekly wage of a woman working in the regimental canteens at Aldershot and Salisbury Plain?

Sir V. Warrender: The Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes are a corporation, registered as a company under the Companies Act, consisting of a council and a board of management, both of which include nominees of each of the Service Departments. The accounts are published annually, and copies of the accounts for 1935 and 1936 have been lodged with the Librarian of this House. A copy of the accounts for 1937 will be


lodged with him when received. I will also send him copies of the accounts for 1933 and 1934. The directions of the council to the management must have the general approval of the Service Departments, but the latter are not responsible for the detailed numbers, wages and terms of service of the employés of the corporation.

Mr. Montague: Can the hon. Member say whether the profits are limited?

Sir V. Warrender: Not without notice.

Mr. Parker: Who is actually responsible in this House for this organisation?

Sir V. Warrender: There is no money for it in Army Votes, but if the hon. Member requires any information and will tell me what it is, I will do my best to get it for him.

Mr. Parker: Is there any objection to trade-union organisation among the persons employed?

STRAITS OF GIBRALTAR (GUN EMPLACEMENTS).

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for War what reports have recently been received as to the existence of long-range batteries in the vicinity of Algeciras and on the African coast opposite Gibraltar; whether such guns are of German manufacture; and whether such batteries are under the control of German officers?

Sir V. Warrender: Later information which has been received confirms the statement made in the course of Debate by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence on 27th July last. With regard to the second part of the question I would refer to the answers given by my right hon. Friend on 2nd November last. In reply to the third part, I have no evidence to show that the guns are controlled by German officers.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that this question was raised in this House three weeks ago by the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and Western (Duchess of Atholl); and is the House to understand that no inquiries have been made by the Government following the allegations that were made in that question?

Sir V. Warrender: I think I should have to see the question.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has any information been received since the date of the original reply?

Sir V. Warrender: We are constantly receiving information.

Mr. Henderson: Might not the House be given the information that the hon. Gentleman has received?

Sir V. Warrender: I have given the House all the information at my disposal and I have said that further information has been received confirming the previous information.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of consulting with the French Government on the grave danger to Franco-British communications in time of war arising from the fixing of German guns on both sides of the Straits of Gibraltar and the possible coercion of Portugal to join a German alliance in the event of General Franco's victory in Spain?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The hon. Member can rest assured that His Majesty's Government are in frequent consultation with the French Government on all important developments arising out of the civil war in Spain.

Mr. Mander: Is it the case that the document recently published by the "News Chronicle" dealing with this is engaging the serious consideration of the Department at the present time?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HERRING INDUSTRY.

Mr. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the successful experiments in Shetland waters of spotting shoals of herring by aeroplane; whether the Herring Industry Board has considered the employment of aeroplanes as a regular aid in the fishing service; and whether he can make any statement on the subject?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I have received a report from the Fishery Board for Scotland on these


experiments. Experiments of a similar kind undertaken by the board some years ago were not regarded as sufficiently successful to justify their continuance. The Herring Industry Board, however, are at present visiting Shetland and will discuss the present experiments and their results with the persons concerned. I shall follow the progress of the experiments with interest.

Mr. Johnston: If the right hon. Gentleman finds that the report of the Herring Industry Board is favourable, will he take the necessary steps to see that it is followed up?

Mr. Colville: Well, I certainly will follow this matter up, because the report I have received shows interesting results.

Mr. Macquisten: Can the right hon. Gentleman not use aeroplanes to find buyers for the fish?

UNIVERSITIES (GRANTS).

Mr. G. A. Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the report of the special committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Alness, on the application by the Scottish Universities for grants from the Education (Scotland) Fund?

Mr. Colville: After careful consideration of the terms of the report, I have decided that, in accordance with certain of its recommendations, grants of £4,000 and £12,000 should be paid from the Education (Scotland) Fund to the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow respectively before 31st July, 1938, the end of their present financial year. With regard to 1938–39 and future years, I hope that the state of the fund will also make it possible for me to give effect to the recommendations of the report. I would add that the payments in the current year to the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow must not be regarded as in any sense implying acceptance of the principle that the Scottish Universities may rely upon the Education (Scotland) Fund to meet any future deficiencies which they may incur. Moreover, the claims of each university on the fund must be considered each year in the light of the financial and other circumstances that may arise, and of the annual reports which it would,

under Statute, be the duty of each university receiving assistance to submit to me.

RENTS, FIFE.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the strong feeling that exists in Fife on the question of the new rent scales and rebate scheme; that a family of man and wife with four children, with an income of £2 19s. 4d. and a rent bill of 9s. 8d. per week, get a rebate of 2d. per week; and that, in many cases before such a rebate is given, the rent, arising from the scheme of standardisation, has already been increased by several shillings per week; and will he consult with the local authorities with a view to finding some means of relieving working-class families of this burden of heavy rents?

Mr. Colville: I have been in touch with the county council, who do not admit that there is strong feeling against their rent scales and rebates scheme. The revised standard rents vary from £14 for a two-apartment flat to £27 for a five-apartment cottage, and rebates may be granted according to the financial circumstances of the tenant, subject to a minimum rent of £10 for a flat and £12 for a cottage of any size. I am informed that the rebated rent in the case referred to by the hon. Member is £16 a year (exclusive of rates), or 6s. 2d. a week for a three-apartment flat. The sum of 9s. 8d. mentioned in the question includes rates. With regard to the last part of the question, while the fixing of rents and the granting of rebates are matters for the local authorities themselves, if the hon. Member will let me know which local authorities he has in mind, I shall have inquiries made.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the experience of Members from Scotland as to the worry and strain and hardship that are caused by high rents, and of the proposals that have already been made, will not the Minister arrange for a meeting with the principal local authorities in order that there may be a thorough discussion of this question of houses and rents, and make some arrangement whereby the Government can assist local authorities to deal with cases such as this?

Mr. Cassells: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the County of Renfrew rents have actually increased in certain instances from £14 to £29?

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise.

Mr. Mathers: Has the Secretary of State examined the Fife system of applying certain standard rents to three-apartment houses; and is he satisfied with it?

Mr. Colville: I think we have gone rather beyond the original question. I can hardly discuss these matters by question and answer.

Mr. Gallacher: Will not the Minister consult with the principal local authorities in order to come to some understood agreement on this question of housing and rents?

Mr. Colville: That is quite beyond the original question.

PROBATION OFFICER, FIFE.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the public complaints about the treatment of young persons by a probation officer in Fife; and whether he will make a public inquiry into the allegations made against him?

Mr. Colville: I am aware that a complaint against a probation officer in Fife was lodged in April last with the Fife Probation Committee. I am informed that the complaint was carefully considered by the committee, and that they and the Juvenile Court at Dumfermline have expressed their confidence in the officer concerned.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that these complaints persist, and that they come from many people who are in very close association with the probation officer, will not the right hon. Gentleman himself order a special inquiry, because it is very essential that the probation officer should be beyond reproach?

Mr. Colville: I am not convinced that this is a case in which the matter ought to be taken out of the hands of the local authority. There is a properly constituted body for examining the question.

JUVENILE COURT, DUNFERMLINE.

Mr. Gallacher: asked tht Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the court-room used for young offenders in Dunfermline is so small that, with the bench and officials present, it is crowded out; and will he take steps to ensure different and better conditions under which young persons can be treated?

Mr. Colville: I am conveying the hon. Member's representations to the County Council of Fife, but I have received no previous complaints about the adequacy of the accommodation for the court in question.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the previous question and of this question, will not the right hon. Gentleman send one of his representatives from Edinburgh to inquire into the treatment of juveniles in this court and by this probation officer? Will the right hon. Gentleman take my word for it that the court is absolutely unfit for the purpose?

Mr. Colville: I have promised to look into the question which the hon. Member has raised.

PROVOST'S CHAIN OF OFFICE, CROMARTY (COAT OF ARMS).

Mr. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that, as part of the Sir Thomas Urquhart memorial celebrations at Cromarty, the Provost is to be presented with a chain of office, and that the Lord Lyon King of Arms has intimated a claim of £19 10s. as his feudal fees for permitting the display of a coat of arms on the municipal chain; and, in view of the irritation caused by these feudal dues and charges by the Lord Lyon's office, what steps he proposes to take to have them commuted or abandoned?

Mr. Colville: I understand that there is a proposal to present the Provost of Cromarty with a chain of office and badge, and that in connection with this proposal Lyon King of Arms, in whom jurisdiction in the matter of recording arms is vested by Statute, was recently asked what were the proper arms and motto of the burgh, and what fee was payable for the use of the arms. He replied that the burgh had not recorded its arms, and that the fee for doing so would amount to about £19 10s.

Mr. Johnston: Can the right hon. Gentleman take no steps in the matter of the costs, referred to in the last part of the question?

Mr. Colville: I am not sure that it would be in accordance with Scottish sentiment to curtail the powers of Lyon in the matter.

Mr. Macquisten: It is the Lyon's share.

Mr. Johnston: Does the right hon. Gentleman really consider that this farce should be continued.

Captain Alan Graham: In view of the fact that Scottish heraldry is well known to be the purest in Europe, may I express the hope that my right hon. Friend will do nothing to impair it?

ANTI-DIPHTHERIA INOCULATION.

Mr. Leach: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what period has to elapse in Edinburgh after the third anti-diphtheria injection before the patient is considered immunised, and whether a similar period has to elapse at Aberdeen, Dundee, and Glasgow before inoculated children are considered to have been immunised?

Mr. Colville: I am informed that, in the view of the medical officers of health concerned, it is difficult to state definitely the period necessary to secure immunity against diphtheria following inoculation, since individual children vary widely. In the majority of cases immunity is secured within six weeks after the last inoculation, although in a certain number a longer time may be necessary, ranging up to three or even six months.

Mr. Leach: Does not the answer signify that the medical profession are rather groping in the dark, and playing dangerous games with the public health?

Mr. Colville: No, Sir.

SIZE OF SCHOOL CLASSES, LANARKSHIRE.

Mr. Barr: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of classes in schools, whether transferred or non-transferred, under the Lanarkshire authority, with 50 or more pupils, as in April, 1937, and April, 1938, respectively?

Mr. Colville: In April, 1937, there were in the area of the Lanark Education Authority 71 classes with 50 pupils, and 32 with over 50 pupils, on the roll. The corresponding figures for April, 1938, were 53 and 22.

Mr. Barr: Is the Secretary of State aware that under the Lanarkshire authority there are still something like 300 teachers unemployed; and will he not, so far as he has power and influence, hasten this matter in order to get at once better care for these children and employment for the teachers?

Mr. Colville: The hon. Member will see that there has been a considerable improvement between the dates mentioned in his question.

Mr. Macquisten: Does the Minister not realise that children exist for the purpose of giving teachers jobs?

TIMBER HOUSES.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Special Areas Housing Association has not yet built any timber houses; and what is the reason for the delay on the part of local authorities in building such houses, in view of the readiness of various contractors to undertake immediate erection?

Mr. Colville: Before the association could begin building, they had to acquire land and prepare plans and specifications. Contracts have, however, been placed for 64 timber houses; tenders for 218 have been received or invited; and schemes for over 800 are actually in hand. Local authorities are also making progress with timber construction. Tenders have been approved for 400 timber houses, of which six have been completed. In addition, 15 authorities have decided to build over 2,100 timber houses, and several other authorities have the adoption of schemes under consideration.

Mr. Stewart: Is not much of the delay due to unnecessary argument among the architects on the question of obtaining a suitable and simple design?

STEAMER SERVICE (ISLE OF MAN—ARDROSSAN).

Mr. Buchanan (for Mr. McGovern): asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that no steamer sailed from Douglas, Isle of Man, to Ardrossan between Monday, midnight, 4th July and Friday, 8th July, and that many passengers attending the Celtic Congress had to journey to Scotland via Liverpool which cost 20S. extra for fares, and the loss of a considerable amount of time; and will he inquire with a view to the establishment of a better and more regular direct service to suit the requirements of the Scottish visitors?

Mr. Stanley: I understand the facts are as stated. The company point out that they advertised full details of their sailings early in the season for the guidance of intending visitors, and that they run such services as the traffic justifies.

VACCINATION.

Mr. Buchanan (for Mr. McGovern): asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the resolution passed by the Glasgow Town Council on 13th May, 1937, asking the Government to repeal the Vaccination Acts; and whether he will make a statement on the matter?

Mr. Colville: The resolution to which the hon. Member refers has been brought to my notice. I am unable, however, to give any undertaking regarding the introduction of legislation on the subject of vaccination.

POST OFFICE (EX-EMPLOYES' ALLOWANCES).

Mr. Cassels: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now prepared to grant additional allowances based on the total amount of pay and emoluments received at retirement under the 1909 Act to ex-employés in the Post Office services?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury Captain Euan Wallace): The hon. Member refers, no doubt, to the claim made by certain Post Office pensioners, who retired between 1922 and 1934, that lump-sum awards made to them on retirement in respect of bonus should be re-assessed retrospectively. This claim has been repeatedly examined, and replies on the subject were given by my predecessors on 9th April, 1935, to my hon. Friend the Member for the Norwood Division of Lambeth (Mr. Sandys), and on 18th and 23rd November last to the hon. Member for the North Division of Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). I cannot agree to re-open these awards.

Mr. Cassells: Is the Financial Secretary aware that his reply amounts to a positive breach of faith with the individuals referred to in the question; and in these circumstances is he not prepared to cause a due and proper investigation to be made?

Captain Wallace: I entirely deny the interpretation that the hon. Member has put on it. It does not amount to a breach of faith at all.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (TEST MATCH, MANCHESTER).

Commander Marsden: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how much was paid as entertainment tax by ticket holders for the third test match held at Manchester between 8th July to 12th July, inclusive?

Captain Wallace: Returns of the payments for admission, which are the official basis for calculating the amount of Entertainments Duty due in such cases, have not yet been received.

Commander Marsden: When such payments are made, will my right hon. and gallant Friend consider returning them?

Captain Wallace: I am not altogether excluding that possibility. One difficulty is that the club has taken money from the public for Entertainments Duty, and it would not seem to be very fair to return to the club money which it has taken from the public.

Sir John Haslam: Would the Financial Secretary consider the idea of returning the money to the club for the benefit of the professional, whose benefit was rained off equally with the Test Match?

Mr. Montague: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the national religion should be taxed?

Viscountess Astor: What is the national religion?

Hon. Members: Cricket.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MINE INSPECTIONS.

Mr. Oliver: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his inspectors who intend to visit mines under their charge give notice to the colliery management of their intention; and, if this is the practice, what is the length of notice usually given?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): The inspectors of mines do not give notice of their visits of inspection. In the comparatively few cases in which the presence of some person or persons is essential to the purpose of the visit (as, for example, when an accident is to be investigated), short notice, usually not more than a few hours, may be given in order to avoid delay and waste of time.

Mr. Oliver: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman inquire how it is that the colliery managements are made acquainted with the fact of a contemplated visit by the inspector if notice is not given?

Captain Crookshank: I cannot imagine how it is. It must be pure guesswork.

Mr. Oliver: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that, after answers of that character, the miners of this country have no faith in the inspectors?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir. I am convinced, on the contrary, that the miners have every faith in the inspectors and the way in which they carry out their work.

Mr. T. Smith: If notice is not given, is it a case of mental telepathy at work?

SAFETY IN MINES.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines to what extent the Voortman safety stemming-plug is in use in the various coalfields; and whether the Safety in Mines Research Board have had under consideration this process and with what result?

Captain Crookshank: I have no statistical information as to the extent to which this plug is used. The Safety in Mines Research Board has studied the different materials and methods for stemming shot-holes, and considers that the use of plugs in stemming does not result in any greater safety than can be secured by suitable stemming material alone.

Mr. Smith: Has this particular process had the approval of the Department?

Captain Crookshank: I think it has been considered by the Safety in Mines Research Board. Its conclusions are as I have quoted to the hon. Gentleman.

WELFARE FUND.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the growing demand among the miners of the country for the allocation of some portion of the proceeds of the miners' welfare levy for the purpose of assisting in the establishment of retiring pensions for aged miners; and whether, in view of the prosperity of the industry, as revealed in the last statistical summary issued by his Department, he will consider taking steps to increase the amount of the

tonnage levy and to provide for the allocation of the increased levy to a pension fund?

Captain Crookshank: The financial resources of the Miners' Welfare Fund are at present under consideration in relation to the urgent demands for pithead baths. In view of these and other calls upon the fund, I can see no possibility of its scope being extended so as to provide for pensions.

Mr. Griffiths: Since the Minister is going to give consideration to the possibility, or desirability, of expanding the resources of the fund in the only way that can be done, by increasing the levy, will he not consider the growing demand that part of the proceeds should be allocated for the establishment of a pensions fund?

Captain Crookshank: That seems to me to be the same question as that on the Paper, which I have just answered.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the answer mean that the Minister will refuse to give any consideration to the possibility of allocating any part of the money to a pensions fund?

Captain Crookshank: I have said that I see no possibility of the scope of the fund being extended.

UNEMPLOYED COLLIERY WORKERS, COUNTY DURHAM (CLASSIFICATION).

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour the number of panels of experts in labour requirements that have been set up in county Durham; the composition of such panels; and whether any members of the medical profession are serving on such panels to determine as to whether a person interviewed is suffering from any physical disability or not?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the panels set by eight local employment committees in county Durham to consider the classification of unemployed colliery workers. These panels consisted of representatives of employers and workers in equal numbers. The medical profession was not represented. The panels completed their task last September. In the Consett and Stanley area the members of the panel have since interviewed specially men who have suffered from nystagmus, with a view to assisting them to regain employment.

Mr. Stewart: Is the Minister satisfied that such a committee, without any members who have a medical and surgical training, is likely to be able to determine whether a man is suffering from any disability which might preclude him from following his occupation?

Mr. Brown: These people deal with opportunities for the men concerned to get suitable work. Surely that is not a matter for the medical profession.

EXPORT PRICES, HUMBER PORTS.

Mr. T. Smith (for Mr. Marklew): asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that coal is being sold for export from the Humber ports at prices much below the prices demanded from Grimsby and Hull trawler owners for similar quality; that the fishing industry is being considerably handicapped in consequence of the failure of efforts to secure an adjustment of prices; and what steps he is prepared to take to ensure that British industrial consumers may be conceded terms not more onerous than those conceded to foreign buyers?

Captain Crookshank: I am aware that, broadly speaking, coal is being sold for export from the Humber ports at prices lower than those quoted for trawler bunkers. I would point out, however, that the Midland District Committee of Investigation recently decided that the prices charged for trawler bunkers were not unfair, inequitable or contrary to the public interest. Export prices for coal, in common with export prices for many other commodities, being fixed in relation to world competition, are sometimes lower than prices charged to inland consumers.

POLICE MOTOR PATROLS.

Sir W. Brass: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider an increase in the number of police motor-cycle patrols in the place of police-car patrols in the Metropolitan area, as, owing to the congestion of traffic at week-ends, the cars cannot manoeuvre in and out of the traffic for control purposes in the same way as the motor-cycle patrols can do?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The advantages of motor-cycles under congested traffic conditions are fully

appreciated, and such vehicles form a considerable proportion of the vehicles used by the Metropolitan Police experimental mobile patrols. There are, however, other factors to be considered, and any decision on future policy in the matter must await further experience.

Sir W. Brass: Can my hon. Friend say what proportion there are of motorcycle patrols to motor-car patrols?

Mr. Lloyd: Not without notice.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).

Mr. Messer: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether the Fair Wages Clause of the Government Contracts Act is applied to the manufacture of imported goods; whether he is aware of the conditions under which Aichiken plywood is manufactured in Japan; and whether official sanction has been given for the use of this material in His Majesty's Office of Works contracts?

The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): In contracts under which imported goods are accepted, the Fair Wages Clause operates in respect of all services performed in this country; it is impracticable to ensure its observance abroad. The answers to the second and third parts of the question are in the negative.

Mr. Messer: In view of the reply to the latter part of the question, will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries, as I have a sample of wood which is being used by firms engaged on Office of Works contracts?

Sir P. Sassoon: I shall be glad to have it, but I have no information.

BOMBING OF BRITISH SHIPS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to protect British and Dominion shipping in the Far East, while carrying on normal trading inside territorial waters and in port, from unlawful and deliberate attacks by hostile aircraft?

Mr. Butler: Since December last His Majesty's Government have not found it necessary to take any special steps for


this purpose, as there has been no subsequent air attack on British shipping in China; but if, as I trust will not be the case, any further attack should occur, His Majesty's ships would take such action as is practicable. At present the movements and positions of British shipping are, when such precaution appears desirable, communicated to the Japanese authorities.

Mr. Mander: Is the position in this matter precisely the same both in the Far East and in Spain?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The position is not the same. In the Far East British ships have certain treaty rights in Chinese ports and territorial waters.

SANJAK OF ALEXANDRETTA.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister if he is now able to state whether the question of the Sanjak of Alexandretta will be brought before the next meeting of the League of Nations, in view of the fact that an agreement has been reached between France and Turkey in substitution of the plan adopted by the Council of the League?

Mr. Butler: I have as yet no information regarding the subjects which will be discussed at the next meeting of the League Council.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that the Sanjak of Alexandretta is at present under mandate to France, will it not automatically come before the Mandates Commission of the League?

Mr. Butler: As I have said, I have no information.

Mr. Mander: Will the Under-Secretary be good enough to make inquiries on the subject?

Mr. Butler: I cannot make a statement on this subject now.

PORTUGAL (BRITISH MILITARY MISSION).

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether he can give any report with regard to the work of the British Military Mission which recently visited Portugal?

Mr. Butler: I am unable at this stage to make any announcement in regard to the work of the Military Mission to Portugal, in view of the fact that it is still in Lisbon and has not yet concluded its labours.

HOUSING (FINSBURY).

Mr. Duncan: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a survey to ascertain the extent of overcrowding in the borough of Finsbury is being carried out at the present time; and whether it is part of the duties of the officials carrying out this survey to inquire the present rent paid by tenants for their accommodation in the house being inspected?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): I understand that in the course of the survey of overcrowding now being carried out by the Metropolitan Borough Council, under Part IV of the Housing Act, 1936, tenants are being asked if they are willing to disclose the amount of rent being paid. I understand that this information is being collected to facilitate consideration of the question of erecting further new flats at rents so far as practicable comparable with those now being paid by local residents. Any answer to such question is, of course, entirely optional.

Mr. Macquisten: Will the hon. Gentleman see that lifts are put in these flats?

Mr. Duncan: Do the tenants know that they are entitled not to answer the question?

Mr. Bernays: If they do not, they will know from the answer I have given to-day.

Mr. George Griffiths: Are the landlords ashamed of the rents the tenants are paying?

RATING OF LAND VALUES.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, in recent years, resolutions in favour of the rating of land values have been adopted and sent to him by 40 local authorities; and what action he proposes to take in order to give effect to these resolutions?

Mr. Bernays: My right hon. Friend has received some resolutions from local authorities in this matter. He is not aware, however, of any consensus of opinion in this matter.

Mr. Stewart: Is the Minister aware that the price of land has steadily increased during the last few years, and that there seem to be no circumstances to justify such an increase, and that the increase is very apparent when local authorities wish to acquire land for building purposes?

GLASS-BOTTLE INDUSTRY (SICK NESS AND MORTALITY STATISTICS).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Health whether he can give statistics showing the incidence of sickness, disease, and mortality rates among those employed in the glass-bottle industry; and how those figures compare with the general averages and with any other industries?

Mr. Bernays: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The most recent available figures are as follow:


Standardized mortality from all causes of males ages 20–65 for the years 1930–32 inclusive in England and Wales:


Glass-blowers and finishers (not machine hands)
160


Glass moulders and pressers
96


All makers of glass and glassware (comprising employers, foremen and all skilled workers)
114


All males
100

The mortality of glass-blowers and finishers was exceeded in five of the principal occupations, namely, underground workers in tin and copper mines, underground workers in other metalliferous mines, sand-blasters, stevedores, slate miners and quarriers in Caernarvonshire.

I regret that I have no statistical information as to the incidence of sickness in this occupation.

MALARIA (COLONIES).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in view of the fact that the number of patients dealt with at Government institutions is only a small proportion of known cases of malaria, and that little is known of this disease and its cost in human life, whether he will consider setting up a central bureau for the collection and dissemination of information concerning the spread of, and loss from, tropical diseases within the Colonial Empire?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): One of the functions of the Bureau of Hygiene and Tropical Diseases is the collection and dissemination of information relating to tropical diseases. It would not appear necessary to set up a further body for the same purpose.

Mr. Adams: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me where I can get the information that I am seeking?

Mr. MacDonald: I think that if the hon. Member will address an inquiry to the Bureau of Hygiene and Tropical Diseases he will get all the information which is at their disposal.

Mr. Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many cases of malaria attended hospital in different parts of the Colonial Empire during the year 1935?

Mr. MacDonald: Information as to the numbers of sufferers from malaria who attended Government hospitals in the Colonial Dependencies in the year 1935 is given on page 5 of the November, 1937, Supplement to the Tropical Diseases Bulletin. I am arranging for a copy of this supplement to be placed in the Library of the House. It is explained in that Supplement that the figures given in it do not include the numbers of cases treated at other than Government institutions.

Mr. Adams: Does not the Minister think that information of this valuable character should always be placed annually at the disposal of Members in the Library?

Mr. MacDonald: I will take that suggestion into consideration.

BRITISH SOMALILAND.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what sums of money have been paid by the Italian Government during the past 18 months for the construction or repair of roads in British Somaliland in pursuance of the Anglo-Italian Agreement of 27th January, 1937, on transit traffic in that territory?

Mr. M. MacDonald: According to the latest report from the Governor, sums amounting to £7,375 have been received by the Somaliland Government from the Italian authorities in Ethiopia in respect of road works in the Protectorate.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies by what date the improvements carried out, in pursuance of the Anglo-Italian Agreement of 27th January, 1937, concerning transit traffic in British Somaliland, by which the ports of Berbera and Zeila have been so improved as to be capable of handling each day, approximately, 250 tons of merchandise, respectively, were completed; and what sums have been paid in respect of these improvements by the Italian Government?

Mr. MacDonald: No works have been carried out at Zeila. The traffic has all been through Berbera, but the improvements contemplated in paragraph 4 of the letters exchanged in Rome on 27th January, 1937, have not yet been carried out. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the present capacity of the port of Berbera?

Mr. MacDonald: I could not give that information without notice.

TRINIDAD (WIDOW'S PENSION CLAIM).

Mr. Buchanan (for Mr. McGovern): asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give consideration to the claim of the widow of Mr. J. D. Manning, late letter-carrier, of 71, Duke Street, Port-of-Spain; and is he aware that on 4th December, 1937, Mrs. Manning was asked to put her case in an interview with the Governor and she responded by writing, but got no reply from the Governor; that Mr. Manning had

27 years' service and his wife 18 years' service in the General Post Office, and was recommended for a pension by the Postmaster-General, which was agreed to as from 1st January, 1926, and that he died on 29th July, 1925?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have received no communication from the Governor of Trinidad in regard to this case, but I will make inquiry of him in the matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister how far it is proposed to go in the event of the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being carried?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): We shall first debate the Motion with regard to Privileges which stands on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
So far as Government Business is concerned, we desire, if possible, to obtain the Business up to and including the tenth Order and the Money Resolution relating thereto. We propose to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule for this purpose but I hope that it will not be necessary to sit unduly late.
A number of the Bills which we desire to take to-day have already been considered on their earlier stages and I do not think, therefore, that the programme is as formidable as it may look. The House will appreciate that there is still a fair amount of Business to be disposed of before the Adjournment for the Summer Recess.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Can the Prime Minister give any indication whether the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Hire Purchase Bill is likely to be taken to-night?

The Prime Minister: That is not on the list for to-night.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 126.

Division No. 308.]
AYES.
[8.52 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Elmley, Viscount
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Emery, J. F.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Peat, C. U.


Albery, Sir Irving
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Petherick, M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Findlay, Sir E.
Porritt, R. W.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fleming, E. L.
Radford, E. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Furness, S. N.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Ramsbotham, H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Rankin, Sir R.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Gluckstoin, L. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gower, sir R. V.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hambro, A. V.
Remer, J. R.


Bernays, R. H.
Harbord, A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Haslam, Henry (Hornoastle)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Blair, Sir R.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rowlands, G.


Boulton, W. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hepworth, J.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Brass, Sir W.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G,
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Salt, E. W.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Higgs, W. F.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Holmes, J. S.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Selley, H. R.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hopkinson, A.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Bull, B. B.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Haek., N.)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cary, R. A.
Hulbert, N. J.
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hunloke, H. P.
Smithers, Sir W.


Channon, H.
Hunter, T.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Christie, J. A.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Spens, W. P.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Storey, S.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Kimball, L.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Leech, Sir J. W.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Lees-Jones, J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Crossley, A. C.
Liddall, W. S.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Crowder, J. F. E.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Touche, G. C.


Cruddas, Col. B.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Culverwell, C. T.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Maitland, A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Denville, Alfred
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Dodd, J. S.
Markham, S. F.
Warrender, Sir V.


Doland, G. F.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Mayhow, Lt.-Col. J.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Drewe, C.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Morgan, R. H.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Eastwood, J. F.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Eckersley P. T.
Munro, P.



Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Nall, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Mr. Grimston and Major


Ellis, Sir G.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Harvie Watt.




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D, (Barnstaple)
Beechman, N. A.
Chater, D.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Bellenger, F. J.
Cluse, W. S.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Cooks, F. S.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Bromfield, W.
Cove, W. G.


Ammon, C. G.
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Buchanan, G.
Daggar, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Burke, W. A.
Dalton, H.


Banfield, J. W.
Butcher, H. W.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Barnes, A. J.
Cartland, J. R. H.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Barr, J.
Cassells, T.
Day, H.


Batey, J.
Charleton, H. C.
Dobbie, W.







Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Kirkwood, D.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Ede, J. C.
Lathan, G.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens,)


Edwards, Sir C (Bedwellty)
Lawson, J. J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Leach, W.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Leonard, W.
Scott, Lord William


Foot, D. M.
Leslie, J. R.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Gallacher, W.
Lipson, D. L.
Sexton, T. M.


Gardner, B. W.
Logan, D. G.
Silverman, S. S.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Lunn, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Granville, E. L.
Macdonald, G. (lnce)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
McEnte, V. La T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
MoGhee, H. G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
MacLaren, A.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Sorensen, R. W.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Mander, G. le M.
Stephen, C.


Groves, T. E.
Marshall, F.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Mathers, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Maxton, J.
Stokes, R. R.


Hardie, Agnes
Messer, F.
Tate, Mavis C.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Montague, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thurtle, E.


Hayday, A.
Muff, G.
Tinker, J. J.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Tomlinson, G.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Oliver, G. H.
Viant, S. P.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Owen, Major G.
Walkden, A. G.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Paling, W.
Walker, J.


Holdsworth, H.
Parkinson, J. A.
Watkins, F. C.


Hopkin, D.
Pearson, A.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Jagger, J.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


John, W.
Poole, C. C.
Westwood, J.


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Price, M. P.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Pritt, D. N.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Jones, Morgan (Caorphilly)
Ridley, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Kelly, W. T.
Riley, B.



Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Kirby, B. V.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson,


Question put, and agreed to.

COAST PROTECTION.

Mr. Holmes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further and better provision for the protection of the coast of the United Kingdom against erosion and for other purposes connected with the matter aforesaid.
At the beginning of this year the Members of this House whose constituencies are on the coast of the United Kingdom formed themselves into a Parliamentary group in order to give particular attention to the problems of the coastal towns. One of these problems is that of coast erosion and sea-flooding, and our investigations have brought us to the definite conclusion that in a number of places coast erosion and/or flooding of land has been caused by the removal of

shingle, sand and other material from the seashore. There is no authority which has power to deal with this matter, and the object of the Bill, to which the House is now asked to give a First Reading, is to enable the Board of Trade to prohibit, restrict or impose conditions as to the excavation or removal of the materials which form part of the seashore of the United Kingdom, not including Northern Ireland, if the Board are of opinion that it is desirable to make such an order for the protection of any part of the coast from erosion or for the prevention of damage to any lands by the action of the sea.

While there is no authority which has power to deal with this matter, it has been established in law that no person


has the right to remove shingle, sand or other material from the seashore if such removal will cause erosion or flooding. The attention of the House must be directed to a case decided by the Court of Appeal in 1880. The matter came before the court on an action in the nature of an information by the Attorney-General, on behalf of the Crown, and an action by the Secretary of State for War, as plaintiff, against Colonel George Tomline, the Lord of the Manor of Felixstowe Priory, in Suffolk. Colonel Tomline claimed to be owner of the foreshore. A shingle bank on the beach formed a natural barrier which protected the land from the sea and was the only barrier which prevented the sea from encroaching on War Office land. Colonel Tomline had for some years past sold large quantities of the shingle, and the War Office alleged that in consequence of this removal War Office land was in immediate danger of being flooded, and that if the removal of the shingle was continued the whole natural barrier of shingle would be destroyed, the War Office land would be flooded and the stability of a martello tower would be endangered.

Mr. Justice Fry laid it down that it was a part of the duty of the Crown of England to protect the Realm of England from the incursions of the sea by appropriate defences, and that it was no less the duty of the Crown to protect the Realm by leaving unimpaired the natural defences which already existed from time immemorial and probably from periods of remote geological antiquity. He, therefore, held that, it being the duty of the Crown to protect the shingle bank, the bank itself was under the safeguard of the Royal Authority in this sense that any person removing this bank so as to prevent or interfere with the performance by the Crown of this public duty would be committing a wrongful act. It would be as much a wrongful act wilfully to destroy the natural bank which the Crown was bound to protect and maintain, as it would be a wrongful act for any person to interfere with the artificial barrier which the Crown might, out of its own revenues, have set up by the erection of a sea wall. The learned judge continued:
Another view might be this. When the land was the land of the Crown, as all land in the country was, or is presumed in point of law to have been at one time, beyond all question it would have been a wrong on the part of the Crown wilfully to have removed

this barrier. When the land was transmitted by grant to a subject, the subject could not do that which would have been a wrongful act on the part of the Crown if the land had remained in possession of the Crown.
The Court of Appeal, composed of Lord Justices Brett, Cotton and James, approved the principles of law laid down by Mr. Justice Fry. Lord Justice Brett added that although Colonel Tomline was not bound to keep the sea out, he must not do any act which would let the sea in. Lord Justice Cotton said that the duty and obligation of the Crown was to protect the land from the incursions of the sea, and that if there was land which was a natural barrier against the sea, in his opinion the public had a right to say that the Crown could not deal with that in such a way as to deprive the Realm of that natural barrier against the sea.

The judgments in this case established the legal position, but, as no Government Department has power to act, action to prevent any person from destroying a natural bank of shingle or sand can only at present be taken by an individual or by a local authority, and as the onus of proof would vest with the plaintiff, who would have to face the possibility of the case going to the House of Lords, it is not difficult to understand that individuals and local authorities hesitate to commence proceedings. This Bill takes the practical step of enabling the Board of Trade to prohibit, restrict or impose conditions as to the excavation or removal of any materials forming part of the seashore if the Board are of opinion that the coast needs protection.

But the Bill provides adequate safeguards for the owners of these materials. Before making an order the Board of Trade must give notice of their intention, must publish the draft order, must consider objections and may hold a local inquiry. Further, before any order is made, the Board of Trade must obtain by resolution the approval of both Houses of Parliament. After an order has been made, a person who fails to comply with its provisions will be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding£50, and in the case of a continuing offence to an additional fine not exceeding £5 a day. Such are the provisions of the Bill. It may be added that no compensation will


be payable to an owner who is affected by an order, since no subject has a right to impede the Crown in the exercise of a primary duty.

Immediately after the Labour Government took office in 1929, its President of the Board of Trade, the late Mr. William Graham, introduced a Coast Protection Bill, which received a Second Reading without a Division. The Bill had actually been drafted by the preceding Conservative Government and would have been presented to the House by Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, now Lord Swinton, if that Government had remained in office. Clause 3 of that Bill is almost identical with the Bill which is presented to the House to-day. The Bill of 1929 was, however, a very wide and con prehensive Measure, and a study of the Debates shows that the reason it did not reach the Statute Book was that it imposed on the national Exchequer and on local authorities an undefined liability for coast defence and that it was, therefore, opposed by Members of this House and by local authorities in all parts of the country. The Debates, however, do not disclose any opposition to Clause 3, and it does not appear unreasonable to assume that if the Coast Protection Bill of 1929 had merely consisted of Clause 3 it would have become law nine years ago.

Question,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further and better provision for the protection of the coast of the United Kingdom against erosion and for other purposes connected with the matter aforesaid,

put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Holmes, Viscount Elmley, Sir George Courthope, Major Braithwaite, Captain Peter Macdonald, Mr. Ede, Mr. Roland Robinson, Mr. Rowlands, Mr. Loftus, Mr. Harbord, Mr. Owen Evans, and Mr. Haslam.

COAST PROTECTION BILL,

"to make further and better provision for the protection of the coast of the United Kingdom against erosion and for other purposes connected with the matter aforesaid," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 222]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Essential Commodities Reserves Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Cirencester) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Wath upon Dearne) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Church Stretton) Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Divorce and Nullity of Marriage (Scotland) Bill [Lords] (changed to "Divorce (Scotland) Bill [Lords] "), without Amendment.
London County Council (Tunnel and Improvements) Bill,
Newcastle and Gateshead Water-works Bill, with Amendments.

PRIVILEGES.

4.7 P.m.

Mr. Attlee: I beg to move,
That the Resolution of the House [11th July], "That this House doth agree with the Report of the Commitee of Privileges,' be rescinded:
That the Report be re-commited to the Committee of Privileges.
I am sorry that I was unable to agree with the advice which you, Mr. Speaker, gave to the House, that this matter should be allowed to rest after your statement yesterday. I felt that it was not right that this House should leave the matter there, seeing that the Committee of Privileges has given a Report which has been held to cast a responsibility for a breach of the Privileges of this House on certain people who are entirely innocent, and that this House by a misapprehension of the facts has been led to approve that Report. It seemed to me that the obvious course for us to take would be that we should rescind our Resolution, that we should remit the matter again to the Committee of Privileges in order that they might correct this Report. The mistake that has occurred is due partly I think, from what you pointed out, to a mistake in the OFFICIAL REPORT, which limited the remit to the Committee, but more through a wrong apprehension of the facts due to statements which were made in Debate.
I think the House is entitled to ask why it has been led to make a wrong decision, why the House has been misled, and why an early opportunity was not taken by those who must have had the knowledge to correct these mistakes. The matter out of which eventually the case of Privileges arose was on 22nd June, and one must take it that from that time onwards responsible Ministers were concerned in getting the facts. The original question arose with regard to the Official Secrets Act on 22nd June. As soon as that matter arose I take it that the Ministers concerned would be watching very closely whatever occurred. On 29th June the matter of Privilege was raised in the House, and in the course of a discussion I said:
The very people who are the subject of inquiry in a cognate matter out of which this has arisen have taken the responsibility for setting up this tribunal, an action which seems to be in conflict with the authority of this House and its Privileges. That seems to me to raise a difficult question. I do not

know whether the Prime Minister will have anything to say with regard to the position of the Committee of Privileges.
The Prime Minister took me up on that, and said that there seemed to be some misunderstanding, and he added:
I assume that for the setting up of the Court of Inquiry the Secretary of State for War is technically responsible.
And he added later:
It would be an automatic proceeding to set up a Court of Inquiry. Once the court has been set up, the proceedings do not come under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State himself, still less of the Government. They are carried on by the court."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1938; col. 1919, Vol. 337.]
The Prime Minister, in perfect good faith, I believe, by that statement led the House to believe that this matter was done by the Court, that is the summoning of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys), and that impression was added to by the mistake in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I do not know whether the Secretary of State for War then had full acquaintance with the facts, but if he had I think he ought to have told the House of Commons what the facts were. The Committee of Privileges met on that very day and the OFFICIAL REPORT, which appeared the next morning, showed the remit to the Committee, and the suggestion was that this summons came from the Court. By that time the Secretary of State must have known it was not so. But the Committee of Privileges carried on under that mistake. The Report was rendered to this House. Eleven days elapsed. The Report was then discussed, and you, Mr. Speaker, gave your ruling as to the scope of the Debate. The House will recall that we had considerable discussions about the scope of the Debate, and you felt obliged to rule that we must not deal at all with any responsibility other than that of the Court of Inquiry. The House will recollect that I made certain statements to Mr. Speaker, suggesting that we were not so restricted, and suggesting also that in my view the findings of the Committee of Privilege did not actually lay the blame on the Court of Inquiry. Mr. Speaker, in misapprehension of the facts, had to take a different line, and he said that the Committee of Privileges
decided that there had been a breach of Privilege in the setting up of the Court of Inquiry, and it puts the whole blame on the Military Court of Inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1938; col. 958, Vol. 338.]


It is now clear from the statement Mr. Speaker made to us yesterday that we were misled as to the facts and that the blame should not have been put on the Court of Inquiry. It is quite clear that the Court of Inquiry did not institute the summons, they knew nothing about the summons and that, as a matter of fact, it was done by the military authorities. I am putting it to the House that in the discussions we should have been corrected by those who knew the facts. It was wrong for Mr. Speaker to give a Ruling under a misapprehension; it was wrong for the Debate to be restricted under a misapprehension; it was wrong for speeches to be made under a misconception. It is quite clear that the Prime Minister knew nothing and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew nothing of this, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a most vigorous speech based entirely on a false idea of the facts. After that Debate time went on from 11th July to 14th July, and during that time, whether it is technical or not, this House had approved a Resolution which places the responsibility for a breach of Privilege on innocent persons. No action was taken. It was left for the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) to raise the matter. Information came to him which was new to him, but which really could not have been new to Ministers of the Crown, and the result has been that we are put in this position, that the House has passed a Resolution which does an injustice to perfectly innocent men, because it approves a Report which is held to have placed the blame for a breach of Privilege on the Court.
For myself, I did not take that view of the findings of the Committee of Privileges. I held that when we expressly stated that no blame was attached to the Court we thereby lifted the blame entirely off the Court. We said that the act of summoning the hon. Member for Norwood to appear was a breach of Privilege, and I took it that that was necessarily done by the military authorities. As far as this House is concerned, the Secretary of State for War is responsible for the military authorities. We did not ask that any punishment should be made, or, indeed, that there should be any further inquiry into the reasons for this breach of Privilege, because the breach had been

healed by the fact that the Secretary of State for War had given orders that the Court should cease to sit until after the inquiry by this House. That was an act of atonement, not of course by the Court, because they could not dissolve themselves, but by the very authority which, in my view, was responsible for the breach of Privilege. Owing to this mistake it was not possible to clear that up in the previous Debate, but I say that there is no reason why it should not be cleared up now. It does not take us very far to say, "It is all right; we have found out the breach, and it does not much matter who was responsible."
I have endeavoured in this matter to take a purely House of Commons point of view. I did not want to pursue the matter of Privilege further, and, indeed, I could not pursue it further, because of the limitation of the Debate owing to the mistake in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I was content to let it rest there, because we did not want to have a prolonged inquiry which might impinge on another inquiry elsewhere. But I am disturbed when I find that the House of Commons is misled like this without protest. I cannot see why this House should be treated in this way. It is an affront to the dignity of the Chair, an affront to the dignity of this House, an affront to the Committee of Privilege and an injustice to the Prime Minister and other colleagues of the hon. Member who knew nothing about this, and who were allowed to make statements which they would not have made if they had had a full knowledge of the facts. It appears to me that there is a definite suppression of the facts. There were a number of occasions on which the facts could have been put right whether by the Prime Minister or some Member raising the matter in the various Debates, but it has not been done, and I think we ought to know why it has not been done.
With regard to what should be done now, I think that, in view of this failure to put the matter right, we want to go rather further into it, because if it is merely a Ministerial mistake I do not see why there should be all this covering up. I am rendered suspicious by the fact that this matter was not put right as it might have been easily in the earlier stage. It is entirely a matter for the House to decide how the matter shall be dealt with, but we are now making it clear that the responsibility does not rest on the Court.


I think we must make it clear and find out so that we do not have some other officer not having the responsibility put upon him by this House, but perhaps having the responsibility put on him in outside gossip. It is essential to find out exactly who did this. My view is that the matter having been remitted to the Committee of Privileges and a mistake having been made, the simplest and easiest course is by the Motion I have put before the House; that the previous Resolution should be rescinded and the matter go back to the Committee of Privileges. This House has at times dealt with matters of Privilege by remitting them to a Select Committee, but it is a matter for the House to decide which is the better way, whether it should go to the Committee of Privileges, or to the Select Committee. I am quite willing to stand by what is the general view of the House on the matter as long as we do get the thing properly inquired into, and as long as we make it absolutely clear that these innocent people, who are fulfilling their ordinary military duties, are now clear beyond all shadow of doubt of having committed a breach of the Privileges of this House. I hope that before we close this matter we shall get a statement which will inform us fully why this House was misled.

4.24 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House, while reaffirming that the summons sent to the honourable Member for Norwood was, in the circumstances, a breach of the Privileges of this House, instructs the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Acts to inquire into and report on the circumstances in which the summons was issued.
I find myself in general agreement with the speech which the Leader of the Opposition has just delivered, but I am not quite certain in my own mind of its conclusions. I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to take the sense of the House on the whole matter which we are debating and decide thereafter what course, not in the interests of any individual Member but in the interests of the House as a whole, we should take. If the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition will allow me, I must express one slight difference of opinion from his speech. I think

he treated too lightly the solid achievement of the Committee of Privileges. This achievement was reached, as the Prime Minister said in his speech on 11th July, not without real and grave difficulty because, on the one hand, the House is debarred from creating new Privilege while, on the other, there was no precise precedent to guide us in our consideration of this particular case. Therefore, the achievement of the Committee of Privileges was this, that we reasserted and applied to new circumstances the vital principle that Members of Parliament must not be hampered or molested, or obstructed in the performance of their duties in this House by pressure from outside. That last phrase I quote from the Prime Minister's own speech of 11th July.
I think too much attention has been given to the personal issues in this case. A breach of Privilege is an affront to the House as a whole, and it is the Privileges of the House as a whole which the Committee sought to defend. The House in accepting the Report of the Committee affirmed that principle in its new application and you, Mr. Speaker, reaffirmed it yesterday. I think public opinion has accepted it, perhaps welcomed it. Therefore, I say, do not let us go back on that now, do not let us rescind our decision of last week and put the whole matter back into the melting-pot of the Committee of Privileges again. Further, in case anyone may suspect, in spite of your Ruling Mr. Speaker yesterday, that the new information which the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) brought to your attention casts doubt in any degree upon the validity of the Committee's Report that a breach occurred, let us reaffirm it as the Amendment which stands in my name quite clearly does.
To my mind, your Ruling yesterday has attached to the Report of the Committee exactly the meaning which I always deemed it to possess, with the exception that it cleared up one point which our Report left, justifiably as it seemed to me, in doubt—a doubt which could be resolved by the process of Debate in this House. The main task of the Committee of Privileges was to ascertain whether in fact a breach of Privilege had been committed. That we discharged. If the breach had been persisted in, it would obviously have been our duty to


go further, to determine responsibility and recommend action to the House. But, in fact, we ascertained that the breach of Privilege had been purged, as we understood, by a cessation of the sittings of the Military Court. Actually, as we now know, the Military Court had not begun to sit and we were assured that it would not sit during the progress of the Inquiry by the Select Committee. Ought we, nevertheless, to have gone further and investigated the question of responsibility? I think not. It would have involved calling a great number of witnesses, important and responsible Ministers of the Crown and officials, the same officials and hon. Members who are day after day for hours at a time giving their evidence to another Committee upstairs, and who would have been trooping along the corridors from one Committee to another. That would have been an undignified proceeding, and an unnecessary thing to do, as, in fact, the breach had been purged, and I believe public opinion and the opinion of this House would have considered it an intolerable spectacle.
There was, however, one difficulty, as it seemed to me, about leaving the question of responsibility entirely open, and that was that it was generally assumed in the House, and it was so stated in one version of our terms of reference, that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) had been summoned by the Military Court, and, therefore, that the Military Court was responsible for the summons. It is only fair to say that it was not the hon. Member for Norwood who misled the House in this respect, for he stated the case quite clearly, when he said:
A Military Court of Inquiry has been set up for the purpose of investigating this very same matter. In my capacity as an officer of the Territorial Army, I have received orders to appear in uniform before this court tomorrow morning for the purpose of giving evidence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1938; col. 1917, Vol. 337.]
That summons to appear was, as the Committee of Privileges subsequently found, the essence of the breach. As the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said, it was the Prime Minister—and I agree entirely with the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister obviously acted in good faith—who first referred to the action having been taken,

not on the responsibility of the Secretary of State, but, as he said:
Once the Court has been set up, the proceedings do not come under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State himself, still less of the Government. They are carried on by the Court."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1938; col. 1919, Vol. 337.]
From that moment, the whole House received the impression that the Military Court had issued the summons. I do not know how the Prime Minister came to be misled. The natural explanation very likely would be that he had not had time to obtain the information. But the Committee of Privileges met that afternoon, and still there was no information on the vital point that the Military Court had not, in fact, sat. The Committee met again the following morning, and, again, there was still no information from the Ministers sitting on that bench that the Court was not, in fact, in being. The Committee reported to the House, and some days later, Mr. Speaker, you ruled that the report of the Committee reflected upon the Military Court; and still there was no information from the Ministers responsible that the Military Court was not even in existence. Therefore, as the suggestion had been made that the Military Court of Inquiry was responsible for this summons, and as we had taken no evidence in the Committee on that point, I welcomed and attached importance to the words:
without making any reflection upon the Military Court.
It seemed to me incredible that we should pass a censure on the Court without receiving any evidence that the Court was, in fact, guilty of the offence with which we should otherwise have been charging it. Surely, the Attorney-General, distinguished lawyer that he is, would have been the first to remind us that you cannot censure a body without evidence showing that it is responsible for the offence for which you are blaming it. Therefore, I agreed to this, not with any intention, let me assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of giving a covert smack to anybody, but because it seemed to me to leave the question of responsibility absolutely untouched for debate and decision by the whole House. I did not even consider that those words exonerated the Military Court, but merely that we had not taken evidence on that point. Those words, and indeed the whole Report,


seemed to me aptly to express the view which I had formed that the breach of Privilege had been committed, that it had been purged by the suspension of the sittings of the Military Court, and that it was for the House, if it so desired, to debate and define responsibility for the breach.
But the House was deprived of that opportunity which I had expected that it would have by your Ruling on the Report in the form in which it was presented to the House. It was presented to the House with the terms of reference as recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, which ran:
Complaint made to the House by Mr. Sandys, Member for the Norwood Division of Lambeth, on an order by a Military Court of Inquiry, summoning him to appear in uniform …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1938; col. 1816, Vol. 338.]
Therefore, you ruled that because it referred to the summoning of the hon. Member for Norwood, the Court was responsible for the breach. I venture to think that it is not unlikely that if, at the head of the Report of the Committee, instead of the words which appeared, there had appeared the words which appeared in the Votes and Proceedings of the House, you would not have given the same Ruling, and that we should have been able to debate the question of responsibility. It seems to me to be clear that the House ought to have an opportunity of debating the question of responsibility for the breach, and that if such a course were in the interests of any one individual in the House more than another, it would be in those of the Secretary of State for War himself, and from what I know of the right hon. Gentleman personally, I cannot help being sure that he would welcome that opportunity of a full Debate on this issue; for, Mr. Speaker, you laid it down in your Ruling on 11th July that:
The responsibility of the Secretary of State ceases, as regards this incident, after the Court had been set up."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1938; col. 951, 338.]
But we now know that when the hon. Member for Norwood had been summoned, the Court had not been set up——

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): It had been set up.

Sir A. Sinclair: It had been set up, but it had not met. That is one of the points which, obviously, we ought to thrash

out in debate in the House. Clearly, we ought to have the opportunity of debating it, and that is the reason I think the matter would be better handled in the way which is proposed in the Amendment on the Paper in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, than by referring it to the Committee of Privileges.
Let the facts be thrashed out in the first place by the Select Committee, and then let them be thrashed out in Debate in the House. Surely, that would be better than sending the Report back to the Committee of Privileges, for the reason which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition himself gave, when he said that if we did that, we should be asking the Committee of Privileges to impinge on an inquiry which is being held elsewhere, and as he said, it is a matter for the House to decide how this should be dealt with. The view which I venture to put forward is that the question of the law and custom of Parliament has been properly decided by the Committee of Privileges, and ought, after the new information brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Louth, and after your Ruling yesterday, to be reaffirmed by this House, and that the question of personalities and responsibilities ought to be referred to the Select Committee and ought, after Debate on their report, finally to be determined by this House.

4.39 P.m.

The Prime Minister: Some words spoken by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition lead me to hope that we shall be able to dispose of this matter this afternoon by general agreement of the House, for I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that if the general sense of the House proved to be in favour of any particular course, he and those for whom he spoke would be quite prepared to accept that view. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) has moved an Amendment, the effect of which would be to remit to the Select Committee which is now sitting further investigation of the facts which have not at present been fully disclosed to the House. I rise now to say that the Government take the view that that is the proper course to adopt on this occasion.
Before I come to the reasons which have led me and my colleagues to that


conclusion, I think I ought to say one or two words about the comments made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on the misunderstanding which took place with reference to the quarter from which the summons to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) came. I have been charged with misleading the House in this matter. Both the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland have been good enough to say that they were sure I misled the House in good faith, but I am not so sure that some of the subsequent remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite quite so fully accepted the good faith as to the subsequent proceedings, and certainly that impression might arise on perusal of a leading article in the organ of the party opposite, which appears to suggest that there has been some dirty work by the Prime Minister in suppressing facts which ought to have been disclosed to the House. I shall not take any accusation of that kind very seriously. I have been a Member of the House for a good many years, and I hope that my past record will save me—

Mr. Attlee: I thought I said throughout that I never charged the Prime Minister with misleading the House. What I inquired was why the facts had been kept from him as well as from the rest of the House.

The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but I want to explain to the House now that if I misled it, I was myself misled by the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood. When I read his statement now, in the light of what I now know, I see that his statement was literally accurate—there was not a word in it which was inaccurate—but I assumed, on hearing the statement, that when my hon. Friend said that he had been summoned to appear before a Court of Inquiry, the summons had come from that Court. It never occurred to me that it could have come from anybody else. That was due to my ignorance of War Office procedure, but certainly that was my impression, and I should be very much surprised if any hon. Members, or any considerable body of them, had any other impression. I should have thought that if they had,

when they heard me misleading the House, they would have jumped up at once to ask what authority I had for suggesting that the summons had come from the Military Court of Inquiry. Nobody asked any such question. Nobody in the Committee of Privileges itself suggested that there was any doubt about the quarter from which the summons had come, and I may say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War was under absolutely the same impression at that time as I was, and as I believe, at any rate the majority of the House was. When the Committee of Privileges met, neither I nor my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had any doubt in our minds whatsoever as to the quarter from which this summons had come, and our proceedings in that Committee were taken in good faith; and although the report does not actually say in so many words that the Court of Inquiry had committed a breach of Privilege, I quite agree that it was a natural implication of the report, and I do not for one moment deny that that was what was in my own mind, as I believed at the time that the summons had come from them——

Mr. Sandys: I want my right hon. Friend to state quite clearly that he does not suggest that I knew, any more than he did, where the summons came from.

Hon. Members: Where did it come from?

Mr. Sandys: All I knew was that I received a summons and that is what I said to the House.

Hon. Members: Where did it come from?

The Prime Minister: Did my hon. Friend imagine that the summons had come from the Court of Inquiry?

Mr. Sandys: I did not know. I received a summons, and I said that.

Hon. Members: From whom?

Mr. Sandys: I received it from a staff officer. Whether he was acting on behalf of the Court of Inquiry or whether he was acting on behalf of the War Office I did not know.

The Prime Minister: I suggest that is what everybody thought, including the Clerks at the Table who prepared the Votes and Proceedings.

Mr. Montague: What about the Secretary of State for War?

The Prime Minister: The question as to whether the person who sent the summons to my hon. Friend was acting on behalf of the Court, or was the Court, does not seem to be very material. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It certainly would not have seemed material to me, if I had received a summons from a person acting on behalf of the Court, instead of from the Court itself. It seems to me clear that we are now going to have all the facts elucidated and that the House will in due course have an opportunity, whatever course is adopted, whether this goes to the Committee of Privileges or the Select Committee, of debating the full facts as revealed to them in the Report of the Committee concerned. In those circumstances I do not want to say any more to-day. I do not want to go any further into the details which are before the Select Committee, or which may be before the Select Committee hereafter. All I want to say is that I think the Select Committee is a more proper body to continue this investigation than the Committee of Privileges. As far as elucidation of the facts is concerned, there is not a ha'porth of difference, but there is this difference between them. The main object of the Committee of Privileges, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland pointed out, was to determine whether a breach of Privilege had been committed. That has been established, and the circumstances in which that breach was committed have also been established. That cannot be altered by anything which is now further revealed as to the circumstances.
Therefore, it seems to me that the Committee of Privileges has done its work, and that it would be quite inappropriate that we should refer back to the Committee this question. To do so would be to raise again a question already decided by the Committee, and approved by the House. What the House wants to know now is what are the circumstances in which this breach of Privilege was committed and where the responsibility lay. That can be done by the Select Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman opposite has also pointed out, if you have another committee going over the same ground as the Select Committee and seeing the same witnesses, surely it is doing the

same work twice over, and it might even lead to considerable embarrassment, if there should be some discrepancy between the two Reports.
In those circumstances it seems to me that the House need be under no anxiety that anything is going to be suppressed. No one is more anxious than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to have the facts elucidated, and I would like to point out that your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, which limited the Debate so narrowly the other day, prevented my right hon. Friend from speaking at all, though he was most anxious to speak and put before the House facts which he thought were not sufficiently appreciated. In those circumstances, I hope the House will accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland. I do not think it necessary for me to take up any more time in recommending that course. I have given reasons why I think it is the proper course, and the House is relieved of any anxiety, if it had any anxiety, as to suppression of facts. It will have the further opportunity which is desired for debating the matter when it has all the facts before it and, in those circumstances, I hope it will not be necessary to prolong this Debate.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: I apologise for intervening at this point but may I ask whether, in other circumstances—supposing there were no second Committee available—it would not be the duty of the Committee of Privileges to fix responsibility for the breach?

The Prime Minister: I cannot answer a hypothetical question of that kind.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: I share the wish and the hope of the Prime Minister that we shall be able to continue to act unitedly as a House of Commons in the further stages of this affair. Nevertheless a certain number of serious points have emerged up to the present time, which in my opinion should be very clearly in the minds of the House and should be brought to their minds upon this occasion. In your statement yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you spoke of a discrepancy upon technical points of procedure for which you assumed responsibility. I need scarcely say that it is with the utmost respect and in no spirit of criticism that


I feel obliged to point out that these discrepancies in technical procedure led to very important and inconvenient consequences. It is, therefore, necessary for us to understand exactly what they were. Originally the Motion of the Prime Minister which was passed by the House on 29th June was:
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
I have no doubt with the best will in the world that Motion was altered in the sense of being defined at the Table, or in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In defining the reference, no doubt a process which, as it were, claimed attention, the reference ceased to be general. It became precise, it became limited and it became wrong. I am very glad there is a general agreement that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) in no way misstated his case to the Chair and to the House. As the Leader of the Liberal party has pointed out, he did not complain of any order from or by a Military Court, but only of orders to appear before such Courts. It was not, as anyone can see, in the power of my hon. Friend, or of anyone not intimately acquainted with military procedure, to know whether those orders were on behalf of the Court or on behalf of a higher authority. His statement to the House was couched in terms which were strictly accurate, correct and complete in so far as they were needed to form the basis of the claim that a breach of Privilege had been committed. As you, Sir, observed yesterday:
The essence of the breach of Privilege was the summoning of a Member of this House before a Military Court in the circumstances detailed in the Report of the Committee of Privileges. Whether he was summoned by the officers composing the Court, or by another officer making the preliminary arrangements for the holding of the Court, is immaterial from the standpoint of Privilege."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 18th July, 1938; cols. 1816–17, Vol. 338.]
There has been, as hon. Members must know, a great deal of talk and discussion about this affair, and I think it is only bare justice to my hon. Friend that the House, at this point in the proceedings, should recognise that his statement was accurate and was complete in all that was relevant to the issue. However, when the Committee of Privileges met an hour later we found ourselves in the presence of the precise and mistaken definition of the complaint, which attributed the order to

the Military Court. As may be seen from our Report—which is all that I am entitled to go upon here and was all that you Sir, were able to go upon—this new and erroneous reference governed all our proceedings. In fact the Prime Minister said as much to-day. The proceedings of the Committee of Privileges are, of course, confidential, but it is clear from this Report that all of us, Ministers and Private Members alike, accepted the basis of the new reference, and were not led to inquire beyond it, or to call evidence about it or correct it in any way. Hence the Report which we presented was vitiated throughout by the original error which came in as I have described.
When the Report came to be debated on 11th July, you, Sir, were forced to give a Ruling on it—I say "forced," in the sense of being confined within the limits of the Report which we had submitted and by the Rules of which you are the guardian and interpreter. You had nothing to go on but that Report, and in consequence you ruled—and I am certainly not challenging your Ruling in any way—that no reference could be made in the Debate to the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War and that the Committee of Privileges had, with whatever reservations they might make, "put the blame upon the Military Court of Inquiry." It was in those circumstances that the Debate was paralysed and that the House had no power either to correct the initial mistake or lay the breach of Privilege on the appropriate shoulders and, in fact, we were led—we must face the fact—into a miscarriage of censure which has done injustice to the Military Court who were literally, at that time, as innocent as a babe unborn. Against the injustice of this decision which we have taken, a protest has been made, the source of which has not been revealed to us, and that has been sufficient for you, Sir, to say conclusively, that no blame of any kind rests upon the Military Court. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a very unfortunate catenation of events——

Hon. Members: Divide!

Mr. Churchill: I hope there will be no attempt to interfere with discussion, otherwise my remarks may become more protracted and more controversial. This, as I say, is a very unfortunate chain of events, and it has led us all to absurd


and wrong conclusions from which I fear, as far as the Committee of Privileges is concerned, we shall not ever be enabled to extricate ourselves. One must hope that such misfortunes will not occur again. I have been astonished, after a lifetime in this House, to find that it is possible for a reference to the Committee of Privileges, which has been approved of by the House, to be presented in a different form, which the House has not heard of and which subsequently governed the action of the Committee, and I hope that measures will be taken to make sure that no similar misunderstanding can arise in the future. It is a serious point of procedure, extending far beyond the limits of the present case, on which it seems to me, with very great respect, a further Ruling of a general character will be found necessary at a later stage.
I should like to direct the attention of the House to the fact that there is a gap between the general statement that a complaint should be referred to the Committee of Privileges and the process of formulating in intelligible and accurate terms what that complaint is, and there appears to be no machinery at present for doing it. But I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that an even more serious point arises from the failure of His Majesty's Ministers to put the mistake right. We were not allowed to discuss the matter freely on the former occasion, but we are entitled to press and submit this point to the House on the present occasion, and I think that is a more serious aspect than this accidental alteration of the reference. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was clearly under a complete misapprehension when he made the statement on 29th June, which has been partly quoted by the Leader of the Opposition and by the Leader of the Liberal party, as follows:
The Leader of the Opposition appears to think that the proceedings of this Court of Inquiry are somehow connected directly with instructions given to it by this Government. If so, that is a misunderstanding. I assume that for the setting up of the Court of Inquiry the Secretary of State for War is technically responsible, but in a case of this kind, w here there has been divulgence of information … it would be an automatic proceeding to set up a Court of Inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1938; col. 1919, Vol. 337.]
One would not expect the Prime Minister himself to know the details of the military procedure, but one would expect the Department of State and the Secretary of

State for War, with the resources of the War Office at his disposal, and the Attorney-General, who was studying the case with the closest attention, or other officers serving under them to lay the actual facts before the Prime Minister without delay, because, after all, 11 days, as has been pointed out, intervened between this Report of the Committee of Privileges being presented to the House and the Debate which took place in this House, and 12 days intervened between the statement which the Prime Minister made, in perfect good faith, and the matter being debated in the House. I must say that I consider that the House is bound to take cognisance of this matter at this stage. We are remitting these matters to the inquiry by a Select Committee, but we are entitled, in broad general terms, to say that we do not understand at the present time how it was that the Prime Minister, the House, and the Chair were left in ignorance of the facts for 11 long days.

Captain Arthur Evans: May I ask my right hon. Friend this question? He was a member of the Committee of Privileges, he had rendered very distinguished service in France as an active officer of the Army, and he had in fact been Secretary of State for War for a number of years. May I ask him whether, from his political and military experience, it occurred to him, during the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges, that there was anything wrong in an order being issued to a witness to attend a Court of Inquiry by the Court itself, instead of by the General Officer Commanding of the military district concerned, who is responsible for convening the Court?

Mr. Churchill: I say exactly what the Prime Minister said on that matter. We all accepted the general point of view when it was put before us, and no doubt we are blameworthy for accepting that point of view, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend has challenged me on this matter, I must say that it is inconceivable to me that the facts should not have been known at the time. Take the Prime Minister's statement:
The Leader of the Opposition appears to think that the proceedings of this Court of Inquiry are somehow connected directly with instructions given to it by this Government. If so, that is a misunderstanding.
Why, Sir, the Manual of Military Law, on page 688, says distinctly:


The Court will be guided by the written instructions of the authority who assembled the Court. The instructions will be full and specific, and will state the general character of the information required.
Are we to assume that a letter of instruction was issued from the War Office, through the various military commands, for the guidance of this Court of Inquiry, without my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ever having been made aware of it, and, that, in a matter of this Parliamentary importance, he did not know of it? If it was never brought to his attention, it appears that he has been ill-served, and if it was brought to his attention, I think the Prime Minister has been ill-served, and we also. The House will remember that I protested in the last Debate, as far as I possibly could, against the view that the War Office was a blind, automatic machine in matters of this kind, and I argued that a real and effective responsibility rested upon the higher authorities and suggested that this real responsibility was implied by exhaustion in the words of our Report
without making any reflection upon the Military Court.
All that I got for that was a tart insinuation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I was making "a covert slap" at the Secretary of State for War. I assure the House there is nothing covert about my methods. They are perfectly open. It has also been said, I think by the Prime Minister now, that if the Secretary of State had risen, he would have been out of order, but I have yet to learn that, if a Minister of the Crown wished to make a personal explanation of this character, when the House was evidently going wrong and when the House was evidently being led to throw blame on innocent parties, such an intervention would not have been permitted by the Chair, or that the House would not have granted the indulgence which would have been asked of it; and I must say that in these 11 days that followed it seems to me that it was due to you, Sir, that the facts should be placed before you. I have no doubt the Prime Minister would have done so if he had known.
In my view, the Chair has received ill usage in this matter, all of which could have been avoided, and very easily avoided. The precedents for the Chair waiving a Ruling which it has given about what is or is not in order in a Debate,

in response to the general wish of the House, are numberless, and I am certain that if the Prime Minister had only known the facts, he would have joined with the Leaders of the two Opposition parties in asking that the House should be perfectly free to debate this matter. This would have saved a great deal of time, the Debate would have been a natural and a normal Debate, the blame would have been put where it may be thought to reside, the House would not have been misled, and we should not have to be debating this matter again to-day. Free debate is a cleansing process, and I believe it is also a process which curtails discussion.
We hear a great deal about the time that is being wasted upon this affair, but that is certainly not our fault. I do not know whether it is being wasted, provided that it inculcates valuable lessons for the future. We are told that the House and still more the country are sick and tired of this matter. As to the country, we have to take that from the Press, some of whose organs have a necessity for providing new topics at least every few days, but the House of Commons must not be wearied in pursuing its themes. It must persevere and persist, and it must enforce accountability, as was done in days of old. Anyone looking around the House can see how utterly bored and sick and deficient in interest the Members are in the whole of this matter, how they are all longing to get away from it to more important topics—great issues of agriculture or of unemployment—on which during long hours this Chamber will be lamentably empty. I do not agree with those who say, "Cut the cackle and get on with the job." Why, Sir, it was about trying to make people get on with the job of rearming that all this cackle started, and it is about that that the cackle will proceed.
I must say that I, personally, rather regret that my right hon. Friend has not himself proposed to refer this matter back to the Committee of Privileges. That, I believe, would have been the best, the most natural, and the shortest course. I am sure, as a member of the Committee, that my right hon. Friend owed it to his colleagues on that Committee to secure for themselves an opportunity of putting themselves right with the House and with its records. Nevertheless, I welcome what was said by the Leader of the Opposition. I think it would be a disaster and


an unfortunate incident if this Motion were pressed to a Division. It might almost seem as if some Members would be voting against the guidence which you have given us from the Chair. I myself should certainly not be able to vote against that guidance. The Debate has clarified matters. We now have for the first time a definite instruction to the Select Committee to examine these matters in detail, and I am content, with other Members, to await the Report of that Committee before attempting to form a final judgment upon the behaviour of the various parties concerned.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Alan Herbert: At all events, we all know now that almost all the Members of the Committee of Privileges are thoroughly well satisfied with themselves. They arrive at the wrong conclusion, on the wrong evidence; they condemn the wrong man; and yet all is perfectly well and at least my right hon. Friend is anxious to start the good work again. Only last Monday my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), in an eloquent speech desiring us to adopt this Report, used these burning words:
I think this Report will be read with the greatest interest abroad, and admiring and envious eyes will be turned towards this country from many lands."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1938; col. 982, Vol. 338.]
I understand that my right hon. Friend is shortly going away on a well-deserved holiday to Paris, and I hope that when he has arrived there he will send us a telegram reporting how many "admiring and envious eyes" he encountered in that city concerning this Report. Now he tells us that this Report is absurd and wrong; and I am bound to say that I agree with him. I must remind the House that we are, after all, dealing with the Report of the Committee of Privileges, and I am anxious briefly to put it on record that I at least have always been unsatisfied with that Report. I sat silent in the last Debate for the sake of good order and discipline and because I respected the personnel of the Committee of Privileges.
But now, "without making any reflection" on the Committee, I must say that they made a pretty poor job of it. The language of this Report is loose and flabby and, indeed, on the point of language alone I should be sorry to think that this document was about to become

a celebrated document of State. I think the substance of it is about as flabby as the language. It finds a crime and says there is no criminal. It reads like a note to General Franco. I can well understand the considerations of haste and the desire for unanimity which made it necessary to produce such a hotchpotch. All the same, it is regrettable. Secondly, I dislike the Report because in spite of the excuses which have been received from the members of the Committee of Privileges, there is the patent unpleasant fact that, although exercising semi-judicial functions, it neglected three of the essential elements of British justice: first, to satisfy yourself as to the facts; second, to examine and cross-examine the accusing party; and third, to give the accused party an opportunity to explain or defend himself. Thirdly, I want to place on record my humble opinion—although I am a new Member I am an old student of constitutional law—that I cannot for the life of me persuade myself to accept the conclusion that a breach of Privilege has been committed by anyone—even a technical, symbolical or unilateral breach. I do not want to start that discussion again, but I feel it a duty to my conscience to place that on record. I hope I shall be proved to be wrong.
I hope the House will accept the Prime Minister's advice and the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment because it will make it unnecessary for me to discuss much the motives behind the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) and I have on the Paper, to add at the end of the Motion:
Provided that any Member of that Commitee who has taken part in the Debates upon this question or is a Member of the Select Committee or has given evidence before it be discharged.
I was very much surprised to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), of all people, say he was anxious once again to have this matter before the Committee of Privileges. I am bound to say I am not quite clear how he manages to reconcile, I will not say with his conscience, but with considerations of taste and dignity, sitting at all upon that Committee upon this matter. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be attempting to combine the incompatible functions of centre forward and referee.


One minute he is bounding forward to the attack, kicking goals in all directions, and the next minute, dignified, but still bounding, he is blowing his whistle. It "appears to me that it might well appear" that he is trying to be both prosecutor and judge and now the Court of Appeal as well. We are all conscious of the great services which he always renders to this country, and we all know that this affair began with a natural and proper anxiety to safeguard the state of our defences. But some surprise would be felt if it were now proposed that the Secretary of State for War should be added to the Committee of Privileges. That is perhaps the best way in which I can explain my meaning. I apologise for continuing the Debate in this way, but I am glad to have had an opportunity to place on record my objection to this Report. I must say that so far from exciting the envious admiration of the world, it seems to me very nearly to make this House ridiculous; and I hope it will not lead us into establishing precedents which may be gravely wrong and dangerous in future.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: A statement has been made that the Members of the House and the people of the country are sick of this question. That is wrong, but the people are very suspicious on this question. They feel that there is going on what the Prime Minister referred to as dirty work. I consider it necessary to draw attention to that, because during the week-end, when I was in the country, I was approached by people of all types who wanted to know what was behind this and who was responsible for covering up what was going on. We have the Prime Minister telling us to-day that he was misled by a presumption that followed from the speech of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys). We were told that every member of the Committee of Privileges was under the same mistaken assumption, but it was obvious that every member of the Committee, even while he was making the decision, had the feeling that whether the summons was sent by the Military Court or not the Court was not responsible. Every member of the Committee obviously had that feeling and it can be read into their Report.
How can hon. Members behind the Government reconcile their support of the

Government and the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister makes a statement that he was misled because of the language used by the hon. Member for Norwood? Here is a Prime Minister responsible not only for the military court, but for the War Office and all other Departments, who tells us that something very serious happened and yet he did not consider it necessary to make inquiries into the reasons for it happening. Why did he not make inquiries? Why did he trust to an assumption from the hon. Member for Norwood? The Prime Minister did not make inquiries because he knew that if he did the responsibility would have to be placed somewhere else. If the Prime Minister says he was misled it was because he wanted to be misled. There is no excuse for the Prime Minister, faced with such a situation in the House of Commons, where an alleged breach of Privilege had been committed which was sufficient to demand the setting up of the Committee of Privileges, not taking the responsibility for finding out how it was possible for this thing to have happened. If anything happens which is against the interests of a responsible body or an executive committee or a business, the head of the organisation at once makes inquiries to find out how such a thing could have happened.
Therefore, I say that any statement made by the Leader of the Labour party or in any of the Press organs suggesting that dirty work has been going on is justified. The Prime Minister was misled because he wanted to be misled and because he knew that if he had inquired into the causes of the summoning of the hon. Member for Norwood to appear before a military court he would have been forced by his own inquiries to place the blame on the proper shoulders. The Prime Minister did not want to do that. He wanted to cover up the matter as expeditiously as possible. He wanted to shield his associates, and by doing so to shield himself. All the suspicions and the so-called waste of time are the responsibility of the Prime Minister and Members on the other side should place all the blame on his shoulders.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I wonder whether the House would forgive me if I intervened to place on record another point of view. I regret that the Motion of the Leader of


the Opposition is withdrawn. I am not going to press that point, but I want to say a word on another matter which I regard as important. Yesterday Mr. Speaker gave a Ruling the effect of which, as I took it, was that the Military Court of Inquiry was not in any way responsible for the breach of Privilege. The Committee of Privileges has said that the Military Court was responsible, and nothing that Mr. Speaker or anybody else says, no matter how much we may regard Mr. Speaker's judgment, can wipe out the findings of the Committee of Privileges. As a matter of fact, the House has accepted the findings of the Committee. That remains, although Mr. Speaker yesterday, in the Ruling which he gave, to some extent set aside the Committee's findings. The Ruling said that the Committee have come to a decision which was based on a misapprehension. Yet that decision is to remain. Nothing Mr. Speaker can say can wipe it out, and nothing that the Committee itself can do can wipe it out. Only this House, at the request of the Committee of Privileges, can do that.
If any change has to be made the matter must go back to the Committee. Otherwise there can be no sense of right or wrong in this matter. The Committee has decided on a certain line of action. I do not know on what evidence it was decided, but everybody tells me that a mistake has been made. I do not know that a mistake has been made. What evidence have I for it? What evidence is there to prove that the Committee of Privileges made a mistake? With all due deference, the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Alan Herbert) has not proved that they made a mistake. All he did was to poke fun at the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). The Committee of Privileges, I submit, have made no mistake until this House says they have made a mistake. The House of Commons has heard a statement by Mr. Speaker that the Committee have made a mistake, but the House of Commons does not propose to send the matter back to the Committee of Privileges to get the mistake put right. It proposes to send it to another Committee, but they cannot put the Committee of Privileges right, having no power to do so. Only this House of Commons, having come to the decision originally come to by it, can really put that decision right.
With all due respect to you, Mr. Speaker, it seems that we have been told that we have made a mistake, but are now making a much more serious mistake by not remitting the matter back to the Committee of Privileges, to rehear it and then report back to the House whether there has been a mistake, on what evidence they base their conclusions and to ask us to reverse the decision. Until that is done the procedure, I submit, Mr. Speaker, is not a procedure that has any constitutional form or order in it at all; it may have been adopted in order to evade criticism but it is not, to my mind, the right procedure for this House to take. In view of the statement of the Leader of the Opposition my hon. Friends and myself do not intend to divide, but we much regret that decision, because we can see nothing logical in what has been done and can see illogical decisions arising in future out of this one.

5.33 P.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I rise only because of the criticism directed against this Amendment by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). As I see it the position is simply this: The decisions of the Committee of Privileges have no operative effect at all. The Committee of Privileges do not declare what are the privileges of this House. That is something which is declared by the House itself, only in these matters the House frequently acts upon the advice of the Committee of Privileges. Therefore, if there was any wrong done to the members of the Military Court of Inquiry, it was done not by the Committee of Privileges but by the House itself when it accepted the report of the Committee of Privileges. We have put our Amendment in this form for this reason: We state that we are still perfectly entitled, if we think fit, to accept the decision of the Committee of Privileges on a simple question of what is the law and custom of Parliament, because that is a matter on which the Committee of Privileges are better qualified than any other Committee could possibly be to advise the House, but it may have been that the House went wrong and has done an injustice by passing the Resolution it has passed, and in order to set that injustice right we want to have a further inquiry, not into the law and custom of Parliament but into facts alone, and it seems reasonable to suppose that the


Select Committee would be a better fact-finding tribunal than the Committee of Privileges. After all, the Committee of Privileges is made up of various party leaders and certain Ministers and is a Committee which necessarily cannot meet for very long at a time. This inquiry might, for all we know—none of us has any special knowledge—occupy a considerable period of time, and in these circumstances it seems to us that the Select Committee is in every way the more appropriate body to inquire into the only question which now remains at issue, and that is a question of fact.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan: I wish to support the point raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) to which, I think, the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) has made no effective reply. It was my submission yesterday that a new point had been raised, and that it would have been quite in order for the new evidence which Mr. Speaker had heard and which he said constituted—he would say no more—a prima facie case that other persons were guilty, could properly have been remitted to the Committee of Privileges yesterday afternoon in exactly the same way as the original matter was submitted to them. I submit that we are going wrong in the methods we are adopting this afternoon. Supposing the Select Committee Report puts the guilt upon another person and we accept that Report, which Report will stand? The Report of the Committee of Privileges which the House has already accepted, or this other Report from the Select Committee which indicates that the guilt lies in another direction?

Mr. Foot: It is not a question of any report varying from another. It would be a question, if the responsibility were brought home to some quarter other than the military Court of Inquiry, of adding a rider to the Resolution which was passed by the House a few days ago when it accepted the Report of the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Bevan: I am sure that when he comes to look into it the hon. Member will find that he is in error. We shall have to rescind the Resolution which we carried in order to establish the fact that the opinion of the House is a subsequent

opinion which it arrived at upon the report of the Select Committee.

Mr. Macquisten: If the Resolution is to be rescinded then different lines must be found for doing it.

Mr. Bevan: The whole point is that we shall have censured the Committee of Privileges because we shall have decided that the Committee of Privileges was wrong. I would also emphasise the point, which has already been made, that there is no evidence before the House or any committee as to who was the guilty party. All that we have is a statement by Mr. Speaker, which I would submit with great respect to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, carries in this matter, and should carry, no constitutional weight. Although Mr. Speaker has immense powers and carries immense authority, if he allows himself to listen to evidence and to give judgment upon evidence which is not available to the House, and if upon that evidence he exculpates certain people whom the House has declared to be guilty, then he sits in judgment upon the decision of the House without the House having heard any evidence on the matter. I should be the very last to wish to be in the slightest way disrespectful to Mr. Speaker, and do not wish to call his Ruling in question, but nevertheless it seems to be a very remarkable situation, and the point to which I tried to direct his attention yesterday was that we were being asked to leave the matter where it was upon a judgment from the Chair which rested upon evidence which had not been made available to any one else.
I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Alan Herbert) has left the Chamber, because I wanted to say a word or two to him. He made a remarkable speech in which he seemed to express more pedantic concern for the language of the Resolution than for the rights of Members of the House of Commons. He was not at all moved to indignation by the fact that the historic Privileges of Members of this House had been violated, but was concerned because the Resolution defending the Privileges of the House of Commons was not couched in proper language. I must say that if he continues his political career in this pedantic direction we shall find his independence in debate more irritating than amusing. He brought to bear upon this matter a frivolous attitude entirely out


of accord with the seriousness of the House of Commons.
I regret to have to say that, because I am myself on terms of great friendship with the hon. Member, and I wish that in this matter he would reconsider his sense of values and ask himself whether he ought not to be stirred by more important considerations than those which inspired him this afternoon. I thought his attack upon the right hon Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) entirely uncalled-for. I should like to know whether the right hon. Member for Epping is more liable to be prejudiced in forming a judgment upon matters submitted to the Committee of Privileges because of his relationship with a Member of the House than is the Prime Minister when he is concerned with the fate of one of his own Ministers? It seemed to me an extraordinary suggestion, and one which violates all the canons of humour to which the hon. Member has given so many years of requited toil, to suggest that a man is more concerned for his son-in-law than——

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: In justice to the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. A. Herbert) I would point out that he never referred to that aspect of the case. He accused the right hon. Gentleman of being centre-forward and referee, by which he meant that he was leading the attack upon the Government, but he did not refer to that other aspect of the matter.

Mr. Bevan: I think that in using the language he did about the right hon. Member for Epping he was guilty of bad taste. It left in the minds of all hon. Members the assumption that the right hon. Gentleman was unfit to be a member of the Committee of Privileges because the breach had been committed against a person with whom he was on unusually familiar terms.

Mr. Nicholson: No.

Mr. Bevan: I am sure that the rest of the House do not share the hon. Member's view. The point has been made over and over again that the breach of Privilege was against the House of Commons, and that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) was simply the vehicle of it. It will be intolerable if it were suggested that a Member of this House could not discharge his public duties because of a private pre-occupation. No such charge has been made against

the Prime Minister, who in this matter behaved with perfect probity. If the right hon. Member for Epping needs further defence it is to be found in the report of the Committee. If he were such a prejudiced person one would imagine—of course, we do not know what passed in the Committee—that he would have used all his undoubted energy and talent to pursue the matter and to indicate in the report who the guilty person was; but so much was he concerned with only discharging his duty as a Member that, finding that a breach of Privilege had been committed, he and the rest of the Committee were satisfied with establishing that fact. He did not therefore use the Committee of Privileges as an instrument for pursuing what was suggested to be a private vendetta. He left the whole matter open for the House to discuss.
The attack upon the right hon. Member for Epping was entirely wrong, and I must say that the cheers with which it was received by some Members opposite astonished me, as a fairly old Member of this House. I have listened to the right hon. Member for Epping shaping the policy of the Government for the last four or five years. I have heard cheers from those benches when the Prime Minister of the day has been rebuking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping for urging policies which, three or four months later, the Government adopted, and it would be true to say that the situation about which the Tory party are boasting in the country is one for which the right hon. Gentleman is largely responsible. One never expects any gratitude or honour in the Tory party.
I was astonished at the hostility which the right hon. Gentleman is now receiving. I do not share his policy; I oppose it, but hon. Members opposite accept it and then abuse the parent of it. The right hon. Gentleman has forced the Government of this country to face its responsibilities. One of the reasons why the present situation has arisen is that hon. Members concerned were attempting to ensure that adequate preparations were being made for the defence of the civilian population, and to discover whether, by the failure of the Government, the civilian population were being improperly reassured. The House of Commons was made aware of certain facts by the very case which brought the censure and the


displeasure of those responsible. We ought to keep our sense of proportion in this matter, and hon. Members of the Conservative party ought to keep some sense of balance about what they cheer in this House.
Over the week-end the Press has been saying that the House of Commons is tired and weary of this matter. I refer to the Government-inspired Press. There has never been a time in this country when the Prime Minister of the day had more support in the popular Press than has the present Prime Minister. There never was a time when the organs of the Press goose-stepped behind the Government more than some of them do to-day. The general Press is taking a very queer attitude towards this matter and many of them are expressing criticism about their own position under the law. As a matter of fact, the House of Commons, in defending its own Privileges in this matter, is defending at the same time the rights of the public Press freely to censure and criticise public policy. It is improper that it should be suggested that, in pursuing truth and trying to establish where the truth lies, Members of the House of Commons are weary of the pursuit. It is likely that the matter will not be considered in the Recess and that the Select Committee will not report before we adjourn for the Summer Recess. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I hope I am wrong; we ought to have the Report as early as possible. Even if the matter is left in cold storage till the autumn, I hope it will be resumed in the autumn with the importance which the issue deserves.

Mr. Attlee: I beg to say that I propose to accept the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), in view of the expression of opinion in the House.

Amendment agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, while reaffirming that the summons sent to the honourable Member for Norwood was, in the circumstances, a breach of the Privileges of this House, instructs the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Acts to inquire into and report on the circumstances in which the summons was issued.

Orders of the Day — COAL BILL.

Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments in lieu of certain of their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, and Lords consequential Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Crookshank.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 2.—(General provisions as to functions of the Commission under Part I.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 24, at the end, insert:
Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall be construed as conferring on the Board any power to give a direction inconsistent with any provisions of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, or of any other enactment relating to the control or management of a mine within the meaning of that Act, or of any regulations made under that Act or any such other enactment.

5.51 p.m.

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Hon. Members who took part in the previous stage will remember that there was a Lords Amendment to insert a proviso in Clause 2, and that a discussion arose in which my right hon. Friend stated that the words "in relation to any matter regulated by the Coal Mines Act," were, as we stated in the reasons sent to the other place, unduly restrictive. The only possible way of getting an opportunity of looking at the words again was by rejecting that Amendment on that occasion. Since then there has been an opportunity of consultation and consideration of what should be the right words, and I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman who has been leading the Opposition will take any exception to them. I shall be very surprised if he does, because I think they carry out the general views which the House expressed on the last occasion.

5.53 P.m.

Mr. T. Williams: We do not oppose this Amendment because I understand that it is practically in the words of my hon. and learned Friend. For once in a way we can agree with their Lordships.

Question put, and agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to compensation payable under Section 6 of this Act.)

Lords Amendment: In page 73, line 19, at the end, insert:
20—(1) If in the case of any valuation region the relevant certificates have not become conclusive under paragraph 17 of this Schedule at the vesting date, the claimant or any person intervening in respect of a holding in the region for which compensation is to be payable may require the Commission to make, at the expiration of each quarter thereafter until the certificates become conclusive, a payment on account under the last preceding paragraph of an amount not less than that specified in this paragraph, and, as from the date of any such requirement, the Commission shall be liable to make payments to the person entitled to the compensation for the holding accordingly.
(2) The amount of a quarterly payment that may be required as aforesaid shall be an amount equal to interest for three months at the rate mentioned in Sub-section (8) of Section seven of this Act on three-quarters of either—

(a) the draft valuation of the holding settled under sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 11 of this Schedule, if at the date of the payment that draft has been settled but the certificate relating to the holding has not been sent to the Commission; or
(b) the amount certified, if the certificate has been so sent at that date:

Provided that if before the beginning of any quarter at the expiration of which a quarterly payment becomes due any payment on account has been made in respect of the holding under the last preceding paragraph otherwise than by way of quarterly payment required as aforesaid. the amount of the quarterly payment shall be reduced by an amount equal to interest for three months at the rate aforesaid on the amount of the said payment on account.
(3) In the case of a holding consisting of a reversion, if at a date on which a quarterly payment becomes due the draft valuation of the holding has not been settled, the amount of that payment shall be an amount equal to one-eighth of—

(a) the rent which became payable to the person entitled to the reversion immediately expectant on the lease, in respect of coal mines of coal and acquired property and rights comprised therein, during the year ending on the vesting date (or, in the case of a lease that has expired before the vesting date, during the last year of its subsistence), less

(b) the mineral rights duty and royalties welfare levy payable or allowable by that person in respect of that rent;

so however that that amount shall be subject to the reduction mentioned in the proviso to the last preceding sub-paragraph in the case therein mentioned:
Provided that in a case in which there is reasonable ground for apprehending that, if a payment of the amount so ascertained were made, the aggregate of that payment and of any other payment on account theretofore made might exceed the aggregate of the compensation for the holding and the interest thereon, the Commission may withhold that payment.
(4) In a case in which the proviso to the last preceding sub-paragraph has effect and in a case of a holding other than a reversion, if at a date on which a quarterly payment becomes due the draft valuation of the holding has not been settled, that payment shall be deferred until the draft has been settled and the amount thereof shall be ascertained under sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph.
(5) In this paragraph—

(a) The expression 'quarter' means a period of three months beginning on the first day of July, October, January or April;
(b) the references to rent payable to the person entitled to a reversion and to mineral rights duty and royalties welfare levy payable or allowable by that person shall, in their application to a leasehold reversion, be construed as references respectively to the rent which that person was entitled to receive from his lessee less the rent which he was liable to pay to his lessor, and to the duty and levy which he was liable to pay or allow less so much thereof as he was entitled to deduct from the rent payable to his lessor."

5.54 P.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Hon. Members will recollect that when we got the Bill from another place there was an Amendment which dealt with the vesting date, postponing it until such time as all the valuations were completed. That Amendment was rejected by this House, on the grounds that we considered the period up to 1st July, 1942, adequate for completing the valuation, and that uncertainty as to the vesting date would render it impracticable to make the valuation. The other place have not insisted upon the Amendment which they made, but they have sent down this Amendment which touches in some ways upon some of the anxieties which led them in the first place to make the Amendment which was rejected by us.
It has been feared in certain quarters, and the fear has been voiced in this House by certain hon. Gentlemen that circumstances might arise in which the valuation might not be completed on 1st July, 1942, and that therefore those who were concerned with royalties as a source of income would be in a very difficult position. The vesting date being settled by Act of Parliament, the money due to them would, so to speak, be in the bank awaiting distribution in their favour, but, as the valuation was not completed, they would be unable to get either their capital or their income. We do not necessarily accept the suggestion put forward that it will be impossible to finish the valuation by 1st July, 1942, because we have taken the best possible advice on that subject and we have come to the conclusion that this is a practicable scheme. Therefore, in asking the House to accept this Amendment, I do not retract, on behalf of my right hon. Friend or of myself, anything that we said on those grounds, but we suggest that there may be some difficulty in individual cases if it were not possible to make payments on the date set.
The Amendment is linked up with the Sub-section which empowers the Coal Commission to make payments on account, either before or after the vesting date, so long as they consider it reasonably safe to do so. They will have raised a great sum of money and it will be to the convenience of everybody if the money is passed on to the ultimate recipients, if that can be done without risk of paying out too much. The Amendment makes it possible for a claimant to ask that payment should be made in his case. If a person or corporation, supposing that the valuations are not completed and compensation cannot be paid out, asks that something should be paid to them on account, the Amendment provides machinery for that purpose. The matter is closely safeguarded and there is no risk of the Commission finding themselves having to pay out more by payment on account than the ultimate compensation. Hon. Members have only to realise that under these new provisions of the Schedule claimants can ask to be paid quarterly from the vesting date, as payment on account, the interest, as laid down in the Bill, on three-quarters of the draft valuation or of the certified valuation.

It is obviously pretty safe to pay interest merely on three-quarters of the draft valuation, though of course nobody can say exactly what the relationship of the draft valuation may be to the final figure.
If, under the Amendment, no draft valuation has been made on that particular property (and again, that is almost inconceivable), under paragraph (3) of the Amendment it would be possible for a claimant to ask for quarterly payments of one-eighth of the rent of the year ending with the vesting date. The Commission are completely safeguarded, because if they think there is reasonable ground to suppose that such a sum might exceed the ultimate compensation, they may withhold payment.
All this is rather hypothetical. But it is rather a source of anxiety, and we ask the House to accept the Amendment, bearing in mind that when my right hon. Friend was asking the House on the 6th of this month to reject the Lords Amendment on that occasion he said that the House would be glad to see whether there was any unfairness or inequity which could be overcome in this matter, and that he would be prepared to assist in overcoming it. I should like to make it clear, anyhow, that the money is due as a debt to the royalty owners as from the vesting date, and, as from that date, interest runs in their favour. Therefore, the House is not being asked to take any kind of risk, but the Amendment makes it possible to deal with what will, I daresay, be only very exceptional cases, where the person or corporation is without any source of income owing to some delay in valuation. I hope that this explanation will satisfy the House. If there are any other points that hon. Gentlemen wish me to mention, I shall be happy to do so. I trust that the House will conclude that this is a very satisfactory way out of a difficulty which at one time loomed very large.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: This Amendment is very different from the original Amendment which their lordships passed on another occasion. It deals with the isolated cases that may crop up, and, since Parliament has decided that certain sums of money shall be paid, we see no reason for withholding payment if certain circumstances obtain at any given time.


The new Amendment clearly provides all the requisite safeguards so that no one person or body should secure more than they are actually entitled to. I entirely agree with the Minister that this Amendment should be agreed to by the House, so that, wherever an odd case may crop up here and there, appropriate arrangements may be made to deal with it

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I should like to add a word in expression of my satisfaction, not only that this Amendment is at last to appear in the Bill, but that hon. Gentlemen opposite are accepting it. In the earlier stages of the Bill I felt that, although the big corporations and big royalty owners would have no difficulty in making a case for a voluntary ex gratia payment on account, I felt that the small royalty owners might find difficulty in getting the Commission, under the original provisions of the Bill, to make a payment on account. The new Amendment will give every person who finds himself in a position of difficulty, and can satisfy the Commission that that is the case, the right to a payment, and accordingly it will protect especially the position of the small royalty owners, which might have given rise to great anxiety under the provisions of the Bill as it was originally introduced. I am very pleased that this Amendment will now appear in the Bill.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Batey: I confess that, when I saw this Amendment, it was beyond me; I could not understand why we should have such a long Amendment, covering two and a half pages, to deal with such a very small matter as the Secretary for Mines has explained. If it means no more than the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, namely, that, if the valuation is not complete by 1942, the royalty owners will be entitled to interest, I am puzzled to know why we could not have had a much simpler Amendment, and why we should go on putting Amendments into the Bill which nobody can understand. I did not understand the Amendment, and thought it was just something that was put into the Bill in order to make a harvest for the lawyers. If it is as simple as the Secretary for Mines has said, I think it should have been put in more simple language.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: My view is the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). Because the Amendment is drafted in the way that lawyers have devised, as a result of centuries of practice, to make their meaning not understood by the ordinary layman. I want to ask a question or two about it. Perhaps the answers are implied in the Amendment. In the first place, is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that there is nothing in this new provision that will offer an inducement to the royalty owners to delay the process of valuation and the vesting date? Apparently, the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) takes the view that all the anxiety in another place has been to protect the small royalty owners, but it comes as a great surprise to me to know that the small royalty owners are represented in another place.

Mr. Spens: The hon. Member has misunderstood what I said. I myself moved similar Amendments in this House at two previous stages of the Bill, mainly for the purpose of assisting the small royalty owners. As I have said, I thought that the big royalty owners could look after themselves.

Mr. Griffiths: I have read with very great care the Debates in another place, and I certainly should not describe those who sponsored and spoke on this Amendment as small royalty owners. Is the Secretary for Mines perfectly certain that there is nothing in the Amendment now which would permit the royalty owners to do what the President of the Board of Trade was afraid they would do if the original Amendment was carried, namely, to use the provision to delay the valuation so as to push off the vesting date and get more royalties? My second question is with regard to interest. I gather that the royalty owners are to be paid, from the vesting date onwards, interest on what may remain of the money which they have not received, very largely, I think, because the valuation will not have been completed. If I understand the matter correctly, before the valuation is complete a certain amount of money will be paid on account into a bank for the small royalty owner whose property has not been completely valued, and that money will lie in the bank and earn interest. Is that the interest that the royalty


owner is to get? If at the vesting date and onwards the valuation has not been completed, will he receive the full royalty, or interest on the full royalty, or will he receive merely the interest on the sum paid into the account? In my view, the royalty owners have had far too much money already, and I am concerned to protect the Commission and not to put any extra burden upon them.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: The House will appreciate that the valuers who will have to be engaged are substantially the same persons who are now doing the job, and very largely it will lie with them whether the matter can be expedited or not. Can the Minister assure us that there is some kind of machinery, or that the Department itself will have some power, to compel the valuers, who will be largely the estate agents of the large landowners, to work up to the vesting date and not beyond it? That is the important point. If the Minister can assure us that there is some kind of machinery that will cause them to expedite the valuation, so that it will be complete, or as nearly complete as possible, on the vesting date, we shall be satisfied.

6.10 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) is puzzled by these words, but I am afraid that most of us who have been through the long stages of this Bill will have realised that we are dealing with difficult and technical subjects, and what would appear quite simple to him and to me becomes, when translated into legal language, rather cumbersome. There is, however, no hidden meaning in the Amendment. In particular, the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) can be satisfied that there is nothing in it that would offer any inducement to delay the valuation. At the moment the Bill, as it has been accepted by both Houses, provides that the royalty income shall be payable up to the vesting date, when it ceases, so that there is no inducement to royalty owners to delay the getting of their money afterwards. Under the Amendment which the hon. Member had in mind, and to which this House declined to agree, that royalty would have

gone on to the vesting date whatever it might be. This is a very different proposal.

Mr. Griffiths: May I ask whether it will be possible for them to delay it, and whether the interest which they might get under this provision would be better for them than receiving the royalty?

Captain Crookshank: No, it must be much worse. There can be no conceivable inducement to anyone to delay, because they get their royalty income up to the vesting date, and, after that, the compensation is due as a debt. As regards the rate of interest, we cannot go back to the Bill at this stage, but Sub-section (8) of Clause 7 provides that, as from the vesting date, the debt is due, and, therefore, interest on the compensation money runs in favour of the royalty owners. The rate of interest is to be ascertained in accordance with the formula which is there prescribed. It is not, therefore, in the interest of anyone to delay the valuation, because the financial effect would be unsatisfactory from the point of view of those who are going to get compensation. This provision, however, is not designed to deal with that objective at all; it is merely to deal with the difficulty that, supposing that the valuation was not completed, and supposing that a particular person had not received anything, he would, under the Schedule in its previous form, though he knew that money was owing to him and that interest was running in his favour on that money, be unable to touch any of it at all. I can assure the hon. Member that there is no kind of inducement to delay the valuation.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
Lords consequential Amendment: In line 3 of the Lords Amendment in page 73, line 21, leave out "the last preceding paragraph," and insert "paragraph 19 or 20 of this Schedule."

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is consequential, and I hope that these are the last words that will be uttered on the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

HOLIDAYS WITH PAY BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[ Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE I.—(Holidays.)

6.12 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out "is," and insert "shall have been."
This is a drafting Amendment. The intention is that wage regulating authorities shall be required to relate the duration of the holiday which is to be allowed either to the period for which the worker has been employed or to the period for which he has been engaged to be employed. It was brought to my notice that the original drafting did not make this quite clear, and the object of the Amendment is to make it clear.

Amendment agreed to.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 1 to 10.

Mr. Mander: On a point of Order. May I ask, Sir Dennis, whether you are proposing to take, in conjunction with this Amendment, any of the subsequent Amendments which cover the same point?

The Chairman: I do not propose to call the next two Amendments on the Order Paper—In page 2, line 6, to leave out "exceeding," and to insert "less than," and in line 7, to leave out "seven," and to insert "fourteen," but the subject of those Amendments arises on this Amendment.

Mr. Macmillan: The present Amendment is an attempt in a very humble way to improve the Bill, which itself, of course, is of very modest dimensions. I understand that the first Amendment which I have on the Paper—In page 1, line 7, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall, before the twenty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-one," is out of order, and I expected that it would be, because the scope of the Bill is so very limited. Anyone who is not acquainted with our Parliamentary procedure and who read the title of the Bill and thought, "That is spendid; I am going to get a week's holiday now," would be wrong. The Bill does nothing of the kind.
Why I am asking the Committee to accept this Amendment is that, since the whole construction of the Bill is based on the Amulree Report, since nothing in the Bill ever goes in any way further than the committee's report, and since that report seemed to many of us rather a jejune affair—not a very stimulating document—it seems at least that the Bill ought to go as far as the committee's recommendation on this important point. In the report it was suggested that, as regards industries covered by trade boards, there should be a paid holiday of at least one week. The proviso I am asking the Committee to leave out does not carry that into effect, as I read it Here we are giving the trade boards authority, as I read it, to make arrangements for holidays, provided that they do not exceed one week, which is a very different thing from saying, "at least one week." If I say to a child, "I will give you at least 1s. a week pocket money," it would be a very different thing from saying, "In no circumstances must you ever have more than 1s. a week."
There is, of course, a difficulty with regard to agricultural wages boards. I will be perfectly frank about that. If the Amendment were to be accepted, it would have to be redrawn on the next stage, if we were to stick strictly to the committee's report; but I should hope that we might be a little more generous in this matter than the Amulree report. As regards trade boards, haulage boards and statutory authorities of that kind, they should now be able to do what the Amulree Committee propose, to make recommendations providing for at least one week's holiday, and not to regard that period as the maximum. As regards agricultural boards, since strong opinions have been expressed by people well acquainted with agriculture that this three days' provision is not absolutely necessary, I would like the Committee to leave out that provision and thus strengthen the Bill which is before us to-day.

The Chairman: The Question is, In Clause 1, page 2, to leave out from line to the word "seven," in line 7.

Mr. Roland Robinson: On a point of Order, Sir Dennis. The Motion is to leave out to line 10.

The Chairman: The hon. Member should know that the reason for putting the Question in this form is in order to save a subsequent Amendment.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Mander: The Government have not done as well in this Bill as the recommendation of the Committee. It has already been stated that whereas the words of the Committee are "at least," the Government are saying in the Bill "nor more." What is to be the position? On a trade board you have people knowing each other well, representing the two sides in the industry and sitting with the independent Government representatives. They have had no difficulty in agreeing in the past on the various matters they have to deal with. Surely it would be doing nothing very extravagant to entrust those persons with the power to agree on a reasonable period of holidays. If there is a possibility of some giving more than seven days' holiday, we are not running any grave risk in giving them the power to do so.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: During the last Parliament we had the present Minister of Labour in another capacity as Secretary for Mines. During his term of office as Secretary for Mines he has occasion to come to this House to legislate on miners' welfare, for which the contributions were reduced. Every time we put up an argument against his proposals, he said, "Here is the committee's report." He was a stickler for the recommendations of the committee. Here are the recommendations of this committee for holidays with pay, that they should consist of at least as many days as are in the working week, and that these days should, as far as possible, be taken consecutively. Here we have the Minister, who stood at the Box last week saying that this Bill was a landmark in the history of this country, that for the first time in our history we should have legal holidays with pay; and now we have a Clause saying that the most that these bodies can give is seven days. I think we should have something inserted to provide that the various committees should give at least seven days' holiday with pay, and I hope we shall get support from all quarters of the Committee for this very moderate demand, and that we shall see the right hon. Gentleman saying he will accept the Amendment.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. R. Robinson: I rise to support the Amendment. It is to me rather disappointing that when we have had a unanimous report from a committee whose experience and knowledge are so varied as that of the Amulree Committee, we should find that on so important a matter as this the Government see fit to make a variation of the recommendation of that committee, which was unanimously agreed. That recommendation, as set out in the report, clearly visualised that the annual holiday with pay should be for a minimum period of one week. On the Second Reading many of us asked the Minister why this remarkable change had been made, and why that minimum period was altered into a maximum. The Minister of Labour did not give us any reply to that. Many of us want to know the real reason behind it.
Many of us have asked for years for holidays with pay. We believe it to be a great ideal, we want to see it spread over as great a number of people as possible, and we want to see the holiday spread over as long a period as industry can afford. I do not see why the people who regulate the conditions of industries should have a fetter placed on their discretion on this particular point. I ask the Government to reconsider this very important matter and give the trade boards a chance to do their job properly and give the maximum holidays that their industries can afford. That will conform to the views of the Amulree Committee, and be in accordance with what the vast majority of the House would like.
The Amendment, of course, carries two parts. The second part deals with the agricultural industry. The Amulree Committee, in their report, provide for a limitation of holidays for agricultural workers to three days at a time. Those who are interested in this question of annual holidays say that three days' holiday is rather poor stuff. Nobody can get very far in three days. The labourer in question is debarred from getting a real change of atmosphere for a sufficiently long period for it to be worth while. If he is in the North of England and wants to go to London, half his time will be spent in travelling, and the travelling costs will be prohibitive for so short a time. I appeal to the Government to do something for the men who come under the agricultural boards. We have been


trying to do something for the men who work on the land for years. We want to make the condition of these men equal to that of men who work in other industries. If this Amendment is accepted, I believe you are going to improve the conditions of work in Great Britain. It was said in the House recently that we were getting perilously near the position of wages and unemployment benefit being practically the same. If we do what we can to provide decent holidays for people employed, we shall be doing something to make the position of the man at work more attractive.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: I support this Amendment because the report of the Amulree Committee, as has been already pointed out, does specifically state that the provision of a holiday of one week with pay, so far as trade board determinations are concerned, should be given, whereas the Bill now limits the determination to no more than seven days. I raised this point on the Second Reading, and the Minister in his reply pointed out that what is required is that statutory provision should be given to a trade board to enable it to make a determination of not more than seven days, but that that did not preclude an industry from behaving more generously if the workpeople and the employers were so disposed. In fact, it was pointed out to the Minister that that was customary in industry to-day. I quite appreciate the force of the argument, but I would point out to the Minister that when you lay down the maximum of a holiday in a Statute, it tends to become a maximum determination in the industry by the trade board or in negotiations with employers. It becomes a habit in the industry to think merely in the terms of the holiday definitely provided in the Statute, and it makes the work of negotiators exceedingly difficult if Parliament has already decided that no more than seven days should be laid down as far as the trade board's determination is concerned. When a determination of this kind is made, you are to a degree penalising the better employers who are disposed to give better treatment, and who, as a result of representations, do give better treatment, because they are at a disadvantage in competition with the worst employers.
I suggest that, as it is, in any case of a trade board, very difficult to get a decision which is generous, the Minister

need have no fear that the trade boards are constantly going to determine that holidays shall exceed seven days. Even if the employers oppose, the representatives who take the middle position on the board, having been appointed by the State, are there to see, from a social and duty point of view, at least that justice is done to the trade or industry. The workers, in urging that there should be more than seven days, will have to convince not merely their own representatives, but the appointed members as to the wisdom, as far as the industry or trade is concerned, of such an action. Therefore, there is a safeguard in that respect.
As the report of the committee represented a compromise—and it is a compromise in which the workers themselves have made certain sacrifices in order to secure unanimity—it is reasonable to ask that at least the minimum terms of the report should now be embodied in this particular part of the Bill. I, therefore, ask that the Minister should very seriously consider this point of view. We want, now that we are starting on this road, the trades and industries to face up to this question in a generous manner, but if it is laid down in a Statute that the will of Parliament is that there shall be seven days holiday, I am afraid that generosity will be superseded by an attitude which will confirm seven days or a week as the maximum which will operate in a particular trade or industry.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I am very glad to join with hon. Members on the other side of the Committee and on my own in support of this Amendment. It is interesting to notice that nobody yet has risen to defend actually the Bill as it stands. I welcome the, Amendment for two or three reasons. The Bill in itself is permissive. It does not say that holidays shall be given at all, but it opens the door, if the board so wishes, to generous action in this respect. I submit, therefore, that it is unreasonable and unwise to put a very low limit to that generosity. If you generally state in the Bill what the maximum amount of holiday is to be, you close to a certain extent the doors of hope and expectation for the workers. It is always a bad thing to do that. Therefore, because this Bill does not compel any holiday at all, it might be


at least generous in its permissive powers. It is very unwise, to say the least of it, and also unfair, to draw a distinction for all time apparently in the amount of holiday that may be allowed to agricultural workers as compared with other workers, at least as far as this Bill is concerned.
We are trying to deal with what is obviously a very great evil—the drift of the people away from the land. It is extremely difficult to persuade young people to stay on the land. Here is going to be another difficulty put in the way of those who want to work on the land, because we are laying down in a Statute that three days' holiday is considered a sufficient maximum for them, whereas for other workers we are prepared to allow seven days. It would be wiser and fairer to leave agricultural workers in the same position as other workers, so that their holidays might be determined by the board which is familiar with conditions in the industry, and not definitely to state that they shall be handicapped in this way as compared with workers in other industries. I join in the appeal to the Minister of Labour which has been made to him from both sides of the Committee to be generous in his attitude towards this Amendment, and to make this permissive Measure as helpful and beneficial as it can be. I am satisfied that by accepting the Amendment, the Measure would be considerably strengthened.

6.37 p.m.

Sir Joseph Lamb: The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) said that the Bill is permissive, and while that is true, it is obvious that it is the desire of those who have drawn the Bill and of everybody else that it should not be permissive, because when an order is made by a trade board or an agricultural wages committee it becomes compulsory. This emphasises the difficulty of making general conditions apply to all industries. While the best of the agriculturists try to do what they can for their men, it is essential that they should have men to look after their stock for the whole seven days. [Interruption.] I am not talking about the holiday, but about the present practice in the industry, and trying to show the difficulty of assimilating the same conditions for both ordinary industry and agriculture.

The Chairman: There is another Amendment on the Order Paper where,

I think, the hon. Member's remarks would be more in order. I am not sure that I ought not to have stopped the hon. Member before.

Sir J. Lamb: I am sorry if I have transgressed your Ruling, Sir Dennis, and if I am called on the later Amendment, I should like to make my remarks on this subject on that occasion. My desire is that every man in whatever industry he is engaged, should have seven days' holiday. In many cases three days would be absolutely useless. It would mean that a man would probably have to spend one day going and another day coming back in travel, and consequently, the only people who would benefit would be the railway companies, and that is not the intention. My desire is that the Amendment should be carried for industry generally, and I would wish to reserve my remarks with regard to agriculture until later.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I want to put a point to the Minister so that he may reply to it. My difficulty with regard to the Amendment is that, if it is carried, it will strike out all reference to trade boards having the opportunity of dealing with matters other than settling rates for time worked, whether day work or piecework. I do not know how the proposers of the Amendment intend to deal with that particular position if the Amendment is carried. Trade boards would then be in the same position in which we find them to-day. It speaks only of the regulating authority but does not deal with trade boards. The Minister may correct me on that point. I do not want the trade boards to be denied the opportunity. The point I wish to put to the Minister is this, and I hope that he will deal with it. Under the Trade Boards Act no restriction is placed upon us when dealing with wages or hours of working or general conditions of employment. Why is it that there is an endeavour to place a restriction on the trade boards and upon agricultural wages committees? One of the advantages of these boards, if there is any advantage at all, is that they deal with the whole industry, and people in the industry cannot escape from their decision.
Why now make a restriction which limits the opportunity for the representatives of employers and employed to come


to a particular conclusion? If they decided that the only legal provision binding upon firms would be a particular number of days, it would place us in the position—I speak as one who is on a trade board at the present time—of having to engage in striking, if we determined to secure a longer holiday than, say, the week or seven days mentioned in the Bill. I hope that there will be no effort to restrict them. It would be a God-send to this country if each of the trade boards could agree upon this particular Measure, but I am not at all hopeful.

6.43 p.m.

Sir William Wayland: I will say only a few words, as I wish to speak, if possible, on the agricultural Amendment. I support the Amendment, because I do not believe in laying down any hard-and-fast rule as regards holidays. This is a permissive Bill, as we are told, and trade boards can arrange the period as between employers and employed. In some trades, where they make a considerable profit, and in small trades, they may perhaps be able to afford to give a fortnight's holiday, but in large trades they may be able to give only a week. In an organisation with which I am connected a week is given annually up to the first 10 years' service, and after 10 years a fortnight is allowed. That sort of thing, I think, could easily be arranged in most firms. In large industries a week would perhaps be the utmost that they could give, but in other industries it might be a fortnight or even longer.

6.44 P.m.

Mr. Riley: I do not propose, if the Amendment goes to a Division, to vote for it, because I think that its purpose can be achieved by the Amendments to follow. Before the Minister replies to the question of the limitation of seven days, I should like to put one or two points to which it would be advisable for him to pay some attention. There is a definite limitation that where the trade boards decide by agreement to apply holidays with pay they cannot provide for more than seven days. Why should that limitation be put there, in view of the fact that presumably as time goes on there will be a general development and extension of holidays from the present period to a lengthened period such as now obtains in various industries, where one

section may have a maximum of a week and other sections may have two, three or four weeks holiday? It seems to me unreasonable and unnecessary to lay down in the Act of Parliament a limitation that the statutory boards shall not, so long as this Act operates, have power to extend the holiday to more than seven days. Not only does that restriction affect what we hope will be the future progress of the holidays-with-pay movement, but it puts those employers working under the statutory boards who may be very well disposed to give more than a seven days holiday, at a disadvantage if they do so, compared with those employers who do not go beyond the seven days. What are the justifications of the Minister for fixing this rigid limitation to seven days?

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I should like to put in a word in support of the Amendment from the standpoint of those people who have nothing to gain from the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) that hope is the principal ingredient in the Bill. It is because of the hopes of the future that I trust those who are to obtain something from the Bill in its present form will not be put down to such narrow limits. If this Clause remains in the Bill and the seven days' holiday is fixed it will mean that those employers who are to come in eventually—and in my trade they will come in last—will be determined in their action to a large extent by what has preceded their action. The Minister is putting into the hands of those employers who find it difficult to come to an agreement with the trade unions a weapon for the establishment of a very short holiday. In the Second Reading Debate he laid down the principle that the Bill would be a landmark in that it issued a warning to employers. It tells them, "Agree with thine adversary quickly," because in good time something is going to be done in the way of compulsion. What is going to happen? If this Clause remains in the Bill and it is laid down that not more than seven days is to be fixed, the employers will be able to say: "In three years' time, all that we shall be in for will be seven days, and until then we will fob off the trade unions." Instead of helping along holidays with pay on a generous scale, the Minister is by this Clause helping the niggardly employer.

6.50 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): In the interests of accuracy I should like to correct a misapprehension which has arisen in the Debate, when it was suggested that one effect of the carrying of this Amendment would be to rule out any reference to trade boards which are one of the wage regulating authorities mentioned on page 1 of the Bill. I would point out that they are mentioned also on page 5. The effect of the Amendment would be to give to the trade boards and the agricultural wage committees powers at large to grant holidays with pay. The Clause, as it stands, will not justify the fear which was expressed by the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson), who appeared to think that something in the provisions of this Bill might hold up the continuance or the increase of voluntary holidays with pay. In the last two years some 1,750,000 more people have enjoyed holidays with pay through voluntary agreements, and I cannot believe that a Clause which releases the trade boards and the agricultural wages committees from their present position of not doing anything in this matter, will have anything like the result which has been suggested.
The wide measure of interest shown in all parts of the Committee tends to dispel the argument which was advanced a few days ago that this was a puny Bill which would have no effective results for the welfare of the workers. The fact that it affects 600,000 agricultural workers, 1,300,000 people working under trade board regulations and 200,000 who work as road hauliers, proves that it will be of wide benefit. I can assure the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) that the wide extension of the principle of holidays with pay would not cause the Government any distress, and I agree with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) that we want to work towards that state of society in which industry will give the maximum amount of holidays with pay that it can afford. In the words of paragraph 134 of the report, I say that it is not unreasonable that the period of the holiday should be more than one working week. The Government have no quarrel with that statement, particularly because of the words that follow it in that paragraph, and because of the words in paragraph 143. We

are confident that in this Clause we have interpreted the intention of the Committee. It was an agreed and unanimous report and we believe that it was agreed and unanimous on the basis of granting one full working week's holiday with pay. [HON. MEMBERS: "At least."] The use of the phrase "at least," however it may be interpreted by hon. Members, was designed to express the view that in general a whole week was desirable, but not to tie down the Government in this Bill to making that obligatory.
The Amendment of the hon. Member for Shipley which was not moved was, no doubt, in the mind of the hon. Member when he spoke. The result of that Amendment would be to prevent a trade board or an agricultural wages committee from giving a holiday of less than seven days. It might well be that the industry could afford a holiday with pay, but not a holiday of that full amount, and it would be undesirable that they should be prevented from giving any holiday at all, because of restrictive words of that kind. In regard to the main contention that has been advanced, that in some way this Clause differs from the intentions of the committee, I can assure hon. Members that that is not the view of the Government, and that this Clause is a genuine attempt to give expression to that unanimity which we believe could never have been achieved except on the basis of a holiday of one working week.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: The Parliamentary Secretary has advanced fairly cogent reasons why the Amendment should be carried and this particular restriction should be dropped from the Bill. He has not advanced one single reason that anyone could call a reason why the words should remain. There has been no answer from the Government. I have listened very carefully, and, apart from giving a certain amount of explanation and answering one or two observations, the only thing the hon. Member did was to assure the Committee that when the recommendations of the committee said "at least one week" and the Government said "not exceeding one week," the Government were precisely carrying out the exact meaning of what the committee said. If the hon. Member believes that, he is insulting his own intelligence, and if he does not believe it, he is insulting this Committee.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: I am disappointed with the reply of the Minister. If he had related his observations rather more to the Debate that has taken place, I do not believe that he would have taken such a view. I must ask the Committee to express themselves in favour of the Amendment. The views that I put forward have been followed by those of other hon. Members, who are in agreement that the Amendment is in accordance with any reasonable interpretation of the report of the committee, more especially having regard to paragraph 134 and paragraphs 143 and 146, which are to be read together. Paragraph 134 says that it is not unreasonable that the period of the holiday should be more than one working week, and paragraphs 143 and 146 say that the holiday should be at least one week. The words say, in effect, that our ambition is that some day we shall reach a period when holidays of more than a week will be granted, and during this preliminary intervening period, until the general legislation of 1941, there must be at least a week. But the Bill says there must not be more than a week during the intervening period.
We have to exercise our common-sense view of what is a reasonable interpretation of what the committee say in their report, and it is a reasonable interpretation that we should say to these wage regulating authorities, "Get on with the job and come to these tripartite arrangements and arrange holidays with pay for at least a week." This is an enabling and permissive Bill. My first Amendment was ruled out of order on the ground that this is an enabling Bill, and when I move this Amendment we are told that we must not do that. We are all anxious to make this Bill an instrument of progress even in this intervening period before the next stage. I therefore ask the Minister to reconsider the matter and to see whether he cannot accept either this Amendment or the necessary words to achieve the purpose of the Amendment, which has been supported by hon. Members in all parts of the Committee.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. T. Johnston: Might I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman? We are all aware of what happened. We know that on the Amulree Committee the trade union representatives agreed

with the employers' representatives to make this a unanimous report on the footing that it would result in a Bill to secure something. The committee unanimously agreed to fix seven days at least. Now, in the dying hours of the Session, when we are afraid that we may lose the Bill, the Government come forward with a measure knocking out the words "at least" and making it "not exceeding" seven days. In other words, they are taking away from the wages committees fixed under the Bill, and agreed to by the employers' and employés representatives on the committee, the option of giving a little longer than seven days. I beg that the inhibition which the Government has imported into this Clause may be withdrawn. If the Minister would meet us on this point he would greatly expedite the passage of the Bill and there would be general agreement here, as there was in the committee between employers and employés.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: The Amulree Committee had to face the problem of how best to forward the movement for holidays with pay. To begin with, there were two quite clear views and a middle one. The first was that the way to do it was by universal compulsion, and the other that it was to be done by voluntary agreement. There was a middle view expressed by a few people, that it might be possible to combine both. The matter was discussed and differing views were expressed. On some points employers held one view and the trade unions another, and on some things they agreed. In the end there was a unanimous report. That does not mean that anyone in the committee sacrificed his own view that a certain course in the long run might be desirable. It means that, in order to forward this great movement to the maximum, they have come to the conclusion that a certain course is necessary.
One thing was ruled out for at least three years—universal compulsion. That was ruled out by general agreement. The second thing was that the means to be adopted to achieve this end during that period should be the use of the well-tried machinery of the trade unions' and employers' organisations in order that the circumstances of each industry might be sifted and examined and conclusions arrived at, by agreement if possible,


before 1941, for applying it to the maximum number of workers. There was also the realisation that there was a body of workers whose representatives were not in the fortunate position of being able to make agreements, but who operated within certain statutory machinery—trade boards, agricultural wages committees, or the new road haulage authority. It was suggested by the committee that immediate legislation should be brought forward to meet that position, hence this Bill.
It is not only the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who are in a difficulty because of the shortness of time. There is no difference here at all. We all want to do the best we can in good faith to forward this movement. It is true that the words of the Clause may be interpreted in the way they have been, but the Bill is drafted on a firm understanding. The agreement arrived at was that, when powers were given to these bodies, it should be on the basis that the holiday should be in the terms of a normal working week. That is why the Bill is drafted as it is, and that is why I have an Amendment on the Paper later on to make the Bill conform to the basis of the agreement that the trade union leaders agreed to with the employers. I am aware that that cannot bind the House of Commons, but we have done our best quickly to implement this part of the report for one reason only, that if we had not brought the Bill forward quickly the lower-paid workers under the trade boards and agricultural wages committees would have had at least six months less time to argue this question out than the ordinary industries with their normal machinery.
I am bound to attach great weight to opinions given me from all quarters of the House, but I am also bound in fairness to myself and to those who rendered great service on the committee to give the House my understanding of what was arrived at, and I regret that I cannot now accept the Amendment, but I will weigh what has been said and before the next stage of the Bill I will take consultation with all those concerned in the committee. I hope the House will agree that in the circumstances that is as far as I can be expected to go at this stage.

7.9 P.m.

Mr. Johnston: I appreciate the great number of difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman has experienced in the matter but, when he is consulting with the industries concerned, will he pay attention to paragraph 146 of the agreement between trade unions' and employers' representatives that there should be a holiday of at least one week with pay? Those are the words that are not in the Clause. They are knocked on the head by the Clause. We would accept the letter and the spirit of paragraph 146 if it were embodied in the Bill, but in one important respect the agreement is being departed from and, so far as I know, neither the employers' nor the employés' representatives have asked the Government to depart from the Amulree recommendation. The words "at least" mean that more might be granted by agreement. The words of the Clause prohibit the trade boards from giving more than one week, and that is the difference between us. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will see fit still to give us an assurance that he will consider whether he cannot so amend the Clause as to keep good faith with both the employers' and the employés' representatives. If he will extend the assurance that he has just given to that extent he will restore harmony between both sides on the matter.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: The Minister has just told us that the essence and spirit of the agreement was that there should be a holiday of one working week. If that is so, why is the Bill so worded that every statutory authority in the Kingdom can give less than a week?

7.13 p.m.

Major Procter: The Minister says he desires to interpret the wishes of the committee and wishes to be loyal to the men. It appears to me that this is the issue, that he has taken the words "at least" and made it appear as if it really means "at most." I hope, therefore, that he will consult with the committee, as he has promised, and will make the meaning clear so that we shall not fail in giving the best we can to the workers.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman opposite asked me if I would consider paragraph 146 of the agreement.


That is the very point. In consulting the committee I will report to them the substance of the Debate and the desire that has been generally expressed. I should not have brought the Bill forward at the last stage of the Session unless I thought it was non-contentious.

Mr. Sorensen: Do we understand that the right hon. Gentleman gave some explicit or implicit assurance to the parties concerned that this limitation of the holiday to seven days would be put into the Bill?

Mr. Brown: I have said nothing of the kind. I have said that I have a responsibility to the committee which arrived at an agreed Report, and no Minister could appoint a committee of that kind and not have due regard to the conclusions that it arrived at.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: I desire to ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment, but I want to put myself right with the Minister of Labour and with the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the introduction of these Amendments are not in conformity with the agreement arrived at in the report.

Mr. E. Brown: I expressly said that no one can bind the House of Commons.

Mr. Macmillan: I am only trying to point out that the use of the words "at least" do not mean "more than." If the Minister of Labour tells me that the members of this admirable committee intended that the words "at least" shall mean "not more than" we are back again in a situation not dissimilar to that in which we found ourselves at an earlier period of the afternoon. I understand that the Minister is to ask the committee what they really did mean and if he finds that it would not mean a breach of the undertaking represented by their report he will put them in. At the same time I hope he will ask them what they mean by paragraph 147 of their report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out "seven days," and to insert "one week."
This Amendment is to make clear the point which I have already put to the Committee and it must be taken as part of a subsequent Amendment—in page 2, line 10, at the end, to insert:

(3) For the purposes of the last foregoing Subsection the expression "week" means, in relation to any worker whose rates of wages are fixed under the said Act of 1924 or the said Act of 1937 a period of seven days, and in relation to any other worker such period as may be determined by the wage regulating authority to be his normal working week.
The views of the Committee were that it should be a normal working week, and, therefore, the first of these two Amendments is to substitute "one week" for "seven days." We have already had a discussion on this point on a previous Amendment, and, therefore, there is no necessity for me to say very much on this proposal. The Amendment follows the Recommendation of the Amulree Committee.

Mr. Rhys Davies: We have considered this matter and have come to the conclusion that one week is meant. We, therefore, accept the Amendment, and the subsequent proposal.

Mr. Buchanan: I think there is too great a readiness to accept this suggestion, and I must dissent from such a course. It is said that a normal working week is meant. If a man works seven days in the week that is his normal working week. There are men who regularly work seven days in the week, and, therefore, if it is to be a normal working week these men should get seven days' holiday, not six. I am afraid that the substitution of the words "one week" will mean that these men will get six days' holiday, and not seven.

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member's point is really one which should be discussed on the second Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour. He will understand that the passing of this Amendment will not preclude him from raising his point.

Mr. George Griffiths: I know men working on the surface of pits who are doing 7½ shifts per week.

Mr. Brown: They do not come under this proposal.

Mr. Griffiths: I am aware that they come under the trade boards, but it may be possible under this proposal for employers to say that they do not propose to pay them for seven days work when they get their holiday.

Mr. Buchanan: My point is that I do not want workers to be called back on a Sunday, I do not want it to be legal for a man to be hauled back on a Sunday in order to work on the seventh day In my opinion the Amendment does not touch that point.

The Chairman: If the hon. Member will allow me to say so, I understand and appreciate his point, and I think it can be better discussed on the second Amendment. I am in the hands of the Committee, and perhaps it may be convenient to discuss the two Amendments together, and then take a decision on the second Amendment formally.

Mr. E. Brown: I do not think there is any ground for the fears of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). The issue is quite clear. There are agricultural workers who are working seven days in the week. If a working man under a Trade Board is working seven days that will be his normal working week. Those who are concerned with the working of the trade boards agree that the phrase "normal working week" is better than "seven days."

Mr. Buchanan: Those under the trade boards do not work seven days in the week, but there are times when people may work seven days in the week and I am anxious that in the case of holidays these persons shall not be brought in to work on the seventh day, which is a Sunday, because in that case they would get only six days' holiday.

Mr. E. Brown: That, of course, will come under the normal powers of the trade boards.

Amendment agreed to.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out from "months," to the end of the Sub-section.
This brings into the discussion the question of the agricultural worker. In the Bill they are limited to holidays not exceeding three consecutive days. Despite what is said in the report, I suggest that to ask agricultural workers, where the employers and workers are agreed, to confine themselves to no more than three consecutive days is not giving them a holiday at all. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) has referred to the

difficulty of those responsible being able to pay for holidays for agricultural workers. I do not know why they are in that difficulty.

Sir J. Lamb: I think the hon. Member is misquoting me. Up to the present I have not said that, although I may later on. I have referred to the difficulty of administration.

Mr. Kelly: I have discussed agricultural questions with the hon. Member, and I gathered that that was the only interpretation to be put on the remarks he has made, and which I am sure he is going to make. Some of us who have to deal with agricultural workers, who find employment for 200 or 300 agricultural workers, some of whom have to tend cattle on the seventh day, find no difficulty, and have found no difficulty for years, in paying them for holidays, and we should never consider it a holiday if we gave them only three consecutive days. I can assure the hon. Member that we pay them more than any farmer in the country pays his employés, as they get about 50s. per week. I submit that if an effort is made by the farmers of the country there is no difficulty in guaranteeing that the men shall have an opportunity of spending a holiday. They are really the most deserving set of men in the community, and it would be not only an advantage to them in health but a great advantage also to those who employ them. We who have had experience of holidays with pay for more than 20 years know that although there was grave doubt as to what would be the cost, after a year or two, as a result of close investigation, it was found that there was not a monetary loss by reason of there being holidays with pay, but that, on the contrary, industry rather gained from the better condition of the workpeople and the spirit which was manifest in the various establishments.
In one case, where 26,000 people, who were employed in various workshops throughout the country, were given holidays with pay, the amazing feature was that, after the first year, the time keeping was such that 98 per cent. of the workpeople in that industry, which is not one of the healthiest industries, worked throughout the year without losing any time. In spite of what may have been said before the Amulree Committee and in spite of the feeling that


agricultural workers should be placed in an inferior position, in the matter of benefits and wages, and now in regard to holidays with pay, I ask the Committee to be fair to the agricultural workers, and to remove this restriction. To do so will not mean that the agricultural workers will receive immediately either three consecutive days' holiday or the longer holiday, but it will at least give an opportunity to those who are conducting the industry, if they are prepared so to do, to arrange for holidays that are really worth something.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I wish to support the Amendment. In many parts of the North of England, it is the custom that agricultural workers should be given seven days' holiday with pay. That is an old custom which may be dying out in some districts, but it is one which has worked very well in the past and which has by no means died out altogether. Perhaps the Minister can give an indication of how far that custom still exists by informing us of the number of farmers who have taken advantage of the long-hiring scheme under the Unemployment Insurance (Agriculture) Act, since along with the custom of long hirings has gone that of giving the forw worker one week's holiday at the end of the hiring. Therefore, it is quite practicable for farm workers to be given a week's holiday, I do not say in all conditions of agriculture, but in very many.
I suggest that if the words which appear in this provision of the Bill are retained, it will tend to encourage farmers to give only three days' holiday, whereas in the past they have given seven days, and that therefore in this respect the Bill will be a retrograde step. As far as I understand the position, if the words were left out, it would still be within the power of the county agricultural wages committees to stipulate that the statutory holiday should be three days, and perhaps in some parts of England they would do that; but in areas where the custom has been for the agricultural workers to have seven days' holiday, the committees would not be compelled to enforce only three days. Consequently, I urge that the words should be omitted. In any case the agricultural wages committees can recommend only three days, and it seems to me that there is no advantage in insisting

that they should do so. I am certain that to very many agricultural workers in the North of England the seven days' holiday is very greatly valued, and they would consider it to be a most disastrous outcome of this Bill if the result of it was that the seven days were cut down to three days.

Mr. E. Brown: What happens now could happen under the Bill. The Bill does nothing to stop that.

Mr. Roberts: That is true, but when it is merely customary—and I agree a custom which is not so universally followed now as it used to be—the tendency undoubtedly will be for the minimum to become the maximum. I think that has always been the tendency with this sort of legislation. Therefore, in answer to the Minister, I suggest that equally my point is a good one, and that if the three days are not mentioned, it will still be open to the agricultural wages committee to fix three days in an area where three days is perhaps as much as can be given, but it will not make it obligatory on the committee to lay down that there shall be three days, when they might very likely be willing to make the number seven. Therefore, I urge that the Amendment should be accepted.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: I support the Amendment. A thing which I cannot understand is why men who are engaged in the oldest occupation in the world should be condemned to only three days' holiday. Those three days might mean a week-end off; it might mean that all they would get would be Saturday, Sunday and Monday. Where can a man and his family go for three days? I cannot understand why agricultural workers should always be penalised. They are penalised in the matter of wages, hours, insurance, and now holidays with pay. With three days' holiday, if an agricultural labourer happened to be working on an inland farm, what chance would he ever have of seeing the seaside? His children would be denied the pleasure of a holiday by the seaside. I want to make an appeal to hon. Members. Time and again plenty of sympathy has been expressed towards the poor agricultural labourers. Now they have an opportunity to give that sympathy some practical form by agreeing to this Amendment.

7.38 p.m.

Sir J. Lamb: The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), in moving the Amendment, said that he knew what I would say when I spoke. That may have been so, but possibly other hon. Members did not have the same power, and therefore, I feel that I must express myself again, and say what I really meant. I hope that the Minister will stick to the Bill as drafted. This Amendment brings out the absolute impossibility of making the conditions of legislation the same for industry as for agriculture, owing to the varying nature of the conditions, not only between industry generally and agriculture, but between various forms of agriculture as practised in different districts. I say definitely that a three days' holiday is a very limited one, and I do pot think that, where it was possible to give seven days, three days would be given. If three days were given, one day would be occupied in travelling to the holiday place and another in coming back from it, and that would simply leave the railway company with the great advantage of two days' fares and the man with the dubious advantage of one day's holiday. There is a great deal to be said against three days, and there is a great deal to be said for seven days, and I should say that undoubtedly seven days is the holiday which it is desirable that the men should have. It is not, however, only a question of what is desirable, but also of what is practicable in the conditions in which the agricultural workers are working. Although, as the hon. Member for Rochdale said, it might be practicable to give seven days in agriculture——

Mr. Kelly: We have given more than that.

Sir J. Lamb: I am not denying that, or that in some cases it is practicable; but I deny that it is so in all cases. For instance, what would happen in the case of a small farmer who had only two men working for him? It is impossible to get men in to do casual work in agriculture at the present time, particularly if it is a case of a man responsible for stock. Therefore, it would mean that the farmer himself would have to do the work for a full week, and that would be a very great difficulty. It is practical in some cases, and not in others, and I sould like to see it made practicable in all cases if possible. I do not want it to be thought that I am against there being seven days'

holiday with pay in agriculture, if it can be worked, and I would point out that the Bill does not say that there shall not be seven days. Under the Bill as it is, where it is practicable, the farmer and his men can agree to there being seven days. What the Bill says is that it is not for the agricultural wages committees to make more than three days compulsory at the present time.
Why should the whole seven days' holiday be given at first? Would it not be much better to leave the industry to do it by steps and to leave it to the wages committees to make three days compulsory by agreement in the meantime, in the hope that later on conditions in the industry, both as regards work and finance, will be such that the seven days' holiday can be made compulsory? There are very great doubts in the minds of many as to whether the industry could afford this? That is not the fault of the industry, but of the community in general, and some hon. Members opposite who have voted against the interests of the industry. What I want is that the industry should be put in such a financial position that it could afford to give seven days' holiday, where practicable, and I hope that in future the help of the Government will make it possible for that to be done. I support the Bill as it now is, in the hope that we may advance by degrees, with the ideal of a seven days' holiday in front of us, but with full knowledge that seven days' holiday are not possible in all cases at the present time.

7.44 p.m.

Captain Briscoe: I do not want to delay the proceedings for any length of time, because we have here, at long last, a Bill which opens the door to holidays with pay for agricultural workers. That is something which I have recommended for some time, and before now I have appealed to farmers to bring it into effect at an early date. On this Amendment, I have no knowledge of what the Minister will say, but on the last Amendment he said that he would think further on the subject and consult with various interests. I do not know whether he will do that in connection with this Amendment, but I wish to bring forward a few points which I think he ought to bear in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) quite rightly said that what everybody wants, if possible, is that the men


should have a week's holiday. There are several considerations to be borne in mind. There is, first, this consideration. There are occasions when the man himself, especially if he be a single man, would prefer to have his holidays in two parts.

Mr. T. Smith: I am sure no workers will mind having their holidays split into two parts, as long as the parts are big enough.

Captain Briscoe: I am dealing with agricultural workers. I have given all my men holidays with pay, and I happen to know what they feel about it, and there are cases. as I was saying, in the agricultural industry where the men, especially the single men, would prefer to have their holidays spread out and in two parts. Often agricultural workers take their holidays in the towns. They may want to go to London for two or three days. They may want to go somewhere else at another time. That is one consideration which I ask the Minister to bear in mind. Another consideration is this. Every employer would, if he could, give his men their holidays in one chunk. Obviously, if a farmer were employing, say, eight men, it might be a great inconvenience to him if the holidays of all those men were split into two parts. He naturally would do whatever he could to give the full week's holiday at once for the purpose of convenience and the efficient working of the farm. On the other hand there are occasions when it is well-nigh impossible for the small farmer who employs one man to give a week's holiday. It would place an intolerable burden on the small farmer who never gets a holiday himself, and is never likely to get one, if he were compelled to give a full week's holiday to the one man whom he employs. It is not a question of expense. He could afford the £2, or whatever may be the amount of the wages. It is a question of not having another man available locally to take the place of the man who goes on holidays, and in many cases there is not another man available. I ask the Minister to bear those points in mind. I welcome the Bill as a step towards holidays with pay for agricultural workers, which I have advocated for some time.

7.49 P.m.

Mr. Price: The hon. and gallant Member for Cambridgeshire (Captain Briscoe)

raised a point which has not yet been considered by the Committee, but ought to be considered, namely, that there are some men who would prefer to take their holidays in parts. I know a few smallholders who work on farms and who get time off from their farm work in order to make their hay, and they would like to have the period split up in the way suggested. Unfortunately, the Bill ties us down to three days, and while the splitting up of the holidays would meet the position of a very small minority, it would not meet the position of the great majority who want to go away to the seaside and who want more than three days. That is the problem. I cannot support the Clause as it stands. I wish to see it left open to the workers to get a longer period than three days. In regard to the general position, my experience of the countryside goes to show that unless the agricultural labourer is given decent holidays in the near future, the difficulty which farmers now experience in getting good skilled men will become worse. It is high time that the agricultural labourer received that status and that dignity to which he is entitled as the great producer of food in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "And wages."] I agree—and wages also.
I know that there is also the difficulty of the small farmer to which the hon, Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) has referred, but that difficulty can be met, and must be met. Most farmers can arrange their work so that it is possible to replace key men. Otherwise, what would happen to-day when cases of illness occur? There is a period in January and February when influenza is rampant, and it is always found possible to replace key men who fall ill. I know many small farmers who work their farms themselves with the assistance of, perhaps, their sons and one or two extra men. They always manage somehow to replace a key man in a time of sickness and if they can do it to meet that emergency they should certainly be able to do it during holiday periods. I am certain that if the will is there it can be done, and I appeal to the Minister to meet this Amendment in the spirit in which it is submitted.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: The position in regard to this Amendment is entirely different


from the position in regard to the previous Amendment. The Committee will have noticed that in this case we have had no quotations from the report of the Amulree Committee. The reason is plain. In this case there can be no question of difference between the Minister and this committee in regard to the committee's report and there is not the slightest difficulty of interpretation. I was rather surprised to see this Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly). He knows that the following paragraph in the committee's report was agreed to by the whole committee, including the powerful trade union representation on that body.
The Committees should be given authority to consider and determine whether in the circumstances of each area the provision of a holiday of at least seven days with pay is one that for the time being should be granted. In the period preceding the general legislation referred to in paragraph 150, the Committees should not have the authority of enforcing that seven days shall be taken consecutively but should have the authority of enforcing that three days shall be taken consecutively. Each Committee should be required to send a copy of its decision to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture.
Hon. Members will have gathered from the speeches of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) and the hon. and gallant Member for Cambridgeshire (Captain Briscoe) that that agreement was not arrived at without due cause. There is no difference of opinion as to the desirability of a suitable amount of holidays with pay for agricultural workers, but the fact is that considering the major issues to which I referred in my previous speech, and having in mind the desirability of securing the maximum of good will by agreement, we must take into account also the infinite variety of circumstances which exist in the agricultural industry. When I hear hon. Members talk about the difference between the small farmer and the large farmer, I would remind them that the small farmer is in the majority on the land, and it is his problems which are likely to tax most the good will in the agricultural wages committees of the various counties throughout the country. Being as keenly desirous as the hon. Member for Rochdale or any hon. Member to do the best they could for the agricultural worker the Amulree Committee,

having heard all the evidence and weighed up the difficulties which exist in the farming industry, came to a specific, clear conclusion, not that the agricultural labourer should have only three days—that is a misleading statement of the position—but that he should have up to seven days and that the compulsory powers should only apply, in the period up to 1941, as regards three consecutive days. That is what the Bill says—precisely what the report recommends unanimously. I ask hon. Members to be chary of beginning with too large a measure of compulsion in a great movement like this. Good will in the countryside is worth a great deal more than some formal Amendments in a Bill. I have no doubt that once this movement begins in the countryside, it will spread and grow as it has done in industry. If that be so, the hon. Member for Stone and the hon. and gallant Member for Cambridgeshire are right in saying that we should do nothing to prevent a farmer making an arrangement with his men for a seven-day holiday if it suits his circumstances.

Mr. Kelly: He can do it now.

Mr. Brown: I agree that he can do it, but he does not. Whatever the hon. Member may say in support of this Amendment, he would not like to deprive the agricultural wages committees of the power which he has denounced as being so limited if the choice was that they were to have this or nothing at all in the way of statutory powers.

Mr. Kelly: The Minister must not threaten.

Mr. Brown: I am not threatening anyone, but I am entitled to be as warm about this matter as the hon. Member was, and I am entitled to say, on behalf of all hon. Members who think with us on this matter, that we feel just as keenly about the agricultural worker—and we have shown it by our actions in the last few years—as the hon. Member for Rochdale, or anybody else. This paragraph which I have quoted would not have appeared in the report unless all concerned had weighed the difficulties which were brought before the committee by those who are experts in the matter. There was an expert on this subject there, and, as I said, having heard all the evidence and being desirous


to forward this movement and to secure the utmost good will, the Amulree Committee came to the conclusion which is now in the Bill. I submit that it would be most unwise at this stage to go back on the clear, considered and unanimous conclusion of the Amulree Committee.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I think the Committee will agree that the right hon. Gentleman has been a little more stiff-necked on this Amendment than he was on the previous Amendment, but he ought to be logical. In the case of the last Amendment he himself departed from the recommendations of the Amulree Committee.

Mr. Brown: indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with the idea that the wording of the earlier part of the Clause has any basis in the paragraph of the report to which it relates.

The Chairman: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not attempt to go into that matter now.

Mr. Davies: I was merely pointing out what was the right hon. Gentleman's attitude on a previous Amendment. But when we come to this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman is not willing apparently for this House to disagree with the report of the Amulree Committee. But if Parliament is convinced that the recommendations of that Committee do not do justice to the farm labourer, then Parliament is entitled to say so.

Mr. E. Brown: The hon. Member must realise that I gave the Committee due warning that, in view of all the circumstances, this Bill should go forward as a non-contentious Bill.

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me when I say that we appreciate to the full the desirability in the circumstances of getting this Bill passed into law, but when we say that, it does not mean that the Opposition are not entitled to place on record their views. We attach importance to this Amendment; we dislike the invidious distinction which is drawn in this Clause against the agricultural worker. Why should this poor fellow always be regarded as an outcast among the working classes?

Sir J. Lamb: We have said that of your side many times.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman says a lot of things that we do not believe. I have listened to some of the arguments that have been put forward, and the agricultural community, according to some of the statements made by hon. Members connected with agriculture, cannot, and could not under any circumstances, allow or afford this holiday or any holiday at all.

Captain Briscoe: We have never said anything of the sort. There is not a word of truth in that.

Mr. Davies: I am putting my own interpretation on what hon. Members say. I am glad the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Robinson) is here, because he has become a great champion of holidays with pay. I do not know whether the lodging-house keepers in Blackpool would provide accommodation for farm labourers for only three days at a time. I am under the impression that some lay down a condition that you must take a room for at least a week. I am thinking of the cheaper places when I say that, and not of the Metropole or hotels of that sort.

Mr. R. Robinson: I shall be pleased to find the hon. Member accommodation in Blackpool for any agricultural labourers, at any time of the year, for any period.

Mr. Davies: Let me put another point to the hon. Member. If the farm labourer is to have only three days' holiday consecutively, and if he comes from a distance, it will take him a day to travel to Blackpool and a day to go back, and when the landlady learns that I am not so sure that she will welcome him for such a short period. Let me come, however, to what I regard as the very serious argument put forward by the party opposite, that the agricultural employer cannot possibly arrange for a full week's holiday at a time for the agricultural labourer. Really, the farmer might as well tell one of his servants when he falls ill from pneumonia, "You cannot be sick for more than three days." I was brought up in the countryside myself, and nobody will ever convince me that even the farm labourer is so very important that he cannot be spared for seven days at a time. Why, we could even do without the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour any time.

Sir J. Lamb: Will the hon. Member say whether he himself has ever been ill for a month.

Mr. Davies: Yes, for six months, and strangely enough the work went on without me almost as if I had been there. It is remarkable how important in this argument the farm labourer has become. He is not important as regards wages or the conditions of his home, but when you come to argue about giving him seven days' consecutive holiday, he becomes a very important factor indeed. The farmer who can let off his farm labourer for three days can surely let him off for seven days. "Ah, but," he says, "how will the cattle go on? What are the cattle going to do even for the three days that the labourer is to be allowed? "The cows will go on holiday, and there will be no milking them, I suppose. No, hon. Members who have been speaking on this subject in fact still want to draw a dividing line between the agricultural labourer and the rest of the working community, and it is unfair to him. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) must know that there are in this country such things as continuous processes in a factory and that the machinery in that factory never stops at any time. Will he believe me when I say that even in those continuous processes men get a week's holiday every year. It is a very strange thing in this world that when the biggest man is absent, the world seems to go on just the same without him.
We do not want to do anything to damage the progress of this Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman knows—the issues involved in it are too great—but I would appeal once again to the right hon. Gentleman that he should give us the same promise on this as he did on the previous Amendment. If he did that, we should reconsider our position, but as things stand at the moment, I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that, although we want to help the progress of the Bill, we are bound to press this Amendment to a Division.

8.9 p.m.

Mrs. Tate: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has said. I fully appreciate that the Minister wishes this Bill to go forward in a spirit of amity, but I believe that the National Farmers' Union, in asking for a differentiation between the agricultural and the industrial worker,

are doing something that will be exceedingly detrimental to themselves. It is already almost impossible to get agricultural labourers, and I believe that whether or not you can make agreements outside the Bill for a seven days' and not merely a three days' holiday, the mistake will go forward if you allow differentiation in this Bill. The agreements that may be come to outside afterwards will not have the same value, and they will never undo the harm that is being done when you once make this differentiation in the Bill. I think it is a shortsighted policy on the part of the National Farmers' Union. To-day we all realise that their difficulties are almost insuperable and that they find it almost impossible to get labour at all, and I hope that in future the hon. Member who has just sat down, and his party, will be able to support wholeheartedly the Measures which the National Government may bring forward for helping agriculture and for helping farmers to pay better wages and give better conditions. Up to date they have opposed every one of those Measures, but in future perhaps we shall see a change of heart, which is very much overdue.
I believe that you have to put all workers on the same level and that this is a mistaken policy, and I beg of the Minister, who, I am sure, has the interests of the agricultural worker completely at heart, that he should consult with the National Farmers' Union and see whether they cannot themselves come to the conclusion that this differentiation will be a disadvantage to the agricultural worker as well as to themselves. The hon. and gallant Member for Cambridgeshire (Captain Briscoe) said that many agricultural workers preferred to take their holidays in two parts.

Captain Briscoe: I do not think I said that. I said that there might be such cases.

Mrs. Tate: I beg the hon. and gallant Member's pardon; I had no wish to misinterpret him. He said there might be cases. That applies equally to the industrial worker in the country, and if we lay down one thing for him, let us lay down the same for the agricultural labourer.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: The Minister of Labour is a jolly good stonewaller. He stands at that Box and tells us that because the Committee have recommended certain things, he is not going to depart from their recommendations. He says that six good men and true belonging to the trade union movement have said so and so; but we, on this side of the Committee, represent constituencies, and while I agree that these men have done their duty, and done it well, that does not bind us down to every letter and comma in their report, and we have a perfect right to express what we feel to be right in the circumstances. In answer to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), I am tired of supporters of the Government, when speaking of agriculture, allowing the agricultural worker always to be put in an inferior position.

Sir J. Lamb: The hon. Member must not charge me with wanting to make the position of the agricultural worker worse than that of anybody else. Ever since I have been in this House, which is since 1922, I have done all that I could for the betterment of the agricultural worker, but I would remind the hon. Member that all the Measures that we have put forward with the object of making the industry one in which there could be better conditions have been opposed by them.

Mr. Smith: That is not true. We have had sympathy by the bucketful for years from the other side of the House. The agricultural worker is a skilled worker, but he has always been the Cinderella of industry. There are to-day in agriculture 20,000 men out of work; there are 988 drawing the maximum of 30s. a week for unemployment—the hon. Member supported the 30s. maximum—and there are more than 365 with families of more than three children drawing 30s. a week. We get men connected with agriculture telling the House that the industry cannot pay. I agree that when we get a new proposition there are bound to be certain difficulties in industry, but they can be got over if they are thought out. We have those difficulties in the mining industry. As far back as 1908, when the first eight-hours Act came into force, employers said it could not be done, but they had to sit down and think it out and they found a way. That argument

is repeated every time there is legislation. We in this House sometimes oppose an idea, not because it is unsound, but because it is new. I am tired of seeing the agricultural worker put in an inferior position.
There are two aspects of this question, one economic, and one human. The economic aspect has been well thrashed out. The Minister of Labour last Thursday adorned his speech in moving the Second Reading of this Bill with a good many picturesque allusions, but, if I may say so respectfully, he allowed his imagination to run away with him on occasions. He talked about the countryman going to Scotland to see the exhibition in three days.

Mr. E. Brown: I said he could not.

Mr. Smith: If the right hon. Gentleman looks up the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find that in answer to my interruption he told me that if I looked at the railway bills, I should find how easy it was for the worker to do it. Three days' holiday with half a week's wage which, on the average is less than 18s., will not take the agricultural worker far. We must have some regard to the womenfolk in the countryside. How can we expect the farm labourer, given Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday as a holiday, to go home and say to his wife, "Come on, my old duck, for the first time I have a holiday and can take you off to Skegness. Get the kiddies ready and we will have a day at the seaside"? It cannot be done.

Mr. Henry Haslam: It is very easy to do it from Lincolnshire.

Mr. Smith: I am talking about farm workers wherever they work. They have as much right to a reasonable holiday as any other industrial workers. If we gave the agricultural wages committees the power to fix seven consecutive days' holiday they could do it. If one wanted to be facetious one could say a few strong things about farmers taking their holidays in two parts. They are not two parts of three days each. I know some of them and appreciate their difficulties, but in common with employers generally they have always put up the one argument against every reform, that they would if they could, but industry could not afford it.
If the hon. Member for Stone looks up the history of legislation he will find


that the same argument has been used since 1897, when we had the first Workmen's Compensation Act. Every employer said it would ruin industry and destroy the friendly societies. We had the same argument from the Conservative party about National Health Insurance. That party talks about its record in social service, but the late Mr. Bonar Law, when the National Health Insurance Act was passed, wrote to the "Times" and said he would kill it if he were in power. Those who represent agricultural districts must protest more than they have done against the inferior position of the worker. He is a skiilled man and entitled to a fair deal. There is no wonder that we have 180,000 fewer people on the land than 15 or 16 years ago. It is because I want to remove this inferiority and give the agricultural worker his right place in the sun with regard to wages, hours and conditions, and holidays with pay, that I wish the House would insist on this three days being taken out of the Clause.

Sir J. Lamb: A charge has been made against me. May I answer it?

The Deputy - Chairman (Captain Bourne): I do not think any charge has been made against the hon. Member.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Committee is placed in a difficult and invidious position with regard to this Amendment. We must all sympathise with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in his peculiar difficulties. He is standing up with that loyalty which we naturally expect from him for the agreement on which this Bill is based. He cannot do other than what he has done, that is to say, to defend the Amulree committee's report. Two parties are involved in the Report, labour and employers. The committee reached their agreement after great difficulty and this particular scheme is an integral part of the agreement. Now that the understanding has been broken, and broken, let it be noted, on the initiative of the Opposition, I feel that we are all, including the Minister, free to express whatever views we have on this matter. When I saw this Clause in the Bill I was opposed to it, and it is giving away no secret when I tell the Committee that I informed my right hon. Friend that I was opposed to it and desired to put down an Amendment

to it. I am breaking no confidences when I say that my right hon. Friend urged me not to do so for the reason which he has given to-day. The understanding has now been broken, and therefore I feel free to oppose the clause openly in this House.
I cannot possibly support the suggestion that farm workers should be given only three days whereas other workers may be given seven consecutive days' holiday. This Bill is not a compulsory Measure; all it does is to give power to the wages committees, if they see fit, to provide for certain days for holidays. There is no compulsion in it. My right hon. Friend properly drew attention to the fact that in most parts of England and Scotland the majority of farmers are small men and that the difficulties of these men were greater than those of the larger farmers. The small men, however, are represented on the agricultural wages committees. and in those counties where their numbers are greatest, there, it may be assumed, their representation will be heaviest. Therefore, it is hardly possible that a wages committee with a majority of small farmers on it would carry through a provision likely to be harmful to them.

Mr. T. Henderson: They are not small men in the hon. Member's county.

Mr. Stewart: I am trying to present a case to the right hon. Gentleman for doing what the spokesman from the Opposition Front Bench asked him to do, namely, to reconsider this Clause. I do not think the House desires to divide upon this question, but, on the other hand, my right hon. Friend would not, I think, be representing the feelings of hon. Members in all parts of the Committee if he insisted on the Bill in its present form. It was, I suggest, a senseless proposal on the part of the National Farmers' Union representatives to limit the ploughman's holiday to three consecutive days. From the farmer's point of view it is an unwise and unbusinesslike suggestion. The average sensible farmer will want, in his own convenience, to give the whole seven days at once; and it is the fairest way of doing it from the ploughman's point of view. Everything that has been said about dividing the holiday in two parts is true. I contend that my right hon. Friend is relieved, on account of this Debate, from the loyalty which he was


naturally prepared to show towards this agreement, and that the Government are now free, if not to accept the Amendment, at least to undertake to consider the matter anew. In that way we shall carry out what is the desire, I believe, of the whole House that the status of the farm worker shall be made no less honourable than that of the industrial worker.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Mander: The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), in his interesting account of the struggle between the Minister and himself, and the final success of the Minister in persuading him not to put down an Amendment, drew a touching picture of the loyalty of the Minister to the Amulree report. One would gather that the Minister was not prepared to vary by one iota the recommendations of the report, but would fulfil them completely. That, however, is a wholly untrue picture of the situation. If he is going to accept the report he must accept all of it, but the Minister has deliberately left out of the Bill one of its most important recommendations, that with regard to domestic service, so that from that point of view the question of loyalty does not come in at all. If the Minister thinks it right to reject one recommendation on a very important matter, obviously he is free and consistent in accepting another proposal, and I cannot understand the reason for not permitting wages committees, if they think fit, and with the agreement of the representatives of the farmers and labourers, to decide upon a week's holiday if they think a week can be managed. The agricultural labourer is every bit as much entitled to seven days' holiday with pay as any industrial worker.
My hon. Friend in his speech made one very true remark, that there are a great many Members who do not want to Divide on this issue, but they are on the Government side of the Committee. They do not want it recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT that on this day in the year 1938 they cast a vote which prevented agricultural wages committees from even attempting to give more than three days' holiday. This House is not the last word. There is a wider tribunal which will decide this question some day, and I hope, that the votes and the speeches to-day will be recorded and brought out on public platforms at the next General Election.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I am very glad to support this Amendment as giving a very small and well-diluted measure of justice to agricultural workers. They have been for generations, and still are, a sweated, underpaid and overworked body of people. What we are about to do is to give an opportunity to this vast population of some 600,000 to enjoy some of the benefits which, it may be, will in time be enjoyed by the other workers of the country. If this Parliament had not been overweeningly attached to capitalism, whenever a great benefaction in the way of subsidy was given to enrich the agricultural community, it would have tacked on to it such terms and conditions as would have raised the wage standards of agricultural workers and given them holidays with pay as an elementary right. The need of these workers and their dependants for holidays is much greater than that of other workers, because they lead a much more monotonous existence than the average town workers, have altogether longer hours of labour and have much more severe daily toil, and, as we know, it is usually a seven days week for them. Moreover, this Parliament has seen to it that they have lower insurance benefits, in order to indicate that they are a servile population and must be kept in their places.
In the area in which I live, certainly, which though largely mining has certain agricultural interests, the agricultural workers have during the last generation been making this demand for holidays with pay. Many of them have no holidays, and they have exceptionally small wages. Small as are the wages of the mining community, the agricultural community in our area are infinitely worse off, and are continually in a state of dire poverty. The industry ought to be rationalised forthwith. We are surprised that people should leave the land for the big towns, and at the same time we are demanding, in the interests of national Defence, that the agricultural industry should be kept in an active, well-equipped and highly-productive state. It was largely for those reasons that Parliament voted so many millions of the hard-earned money of the taxpayers to the privileged agricultural community of these islands. If we want a contented peasantry, a prerequisite of this new state of affairs, we must accept the proposition embodied in


the Amendment. I am not one of those Members who are prepared to agree to the theory, for it is a mere theory, that the agricultural industry in the main in this country is not a highly prosperous one. No evidence to the contrary has been submitted to us, except hearsay.
The talk we hear in some quarters about the impossibility of the industry bearing this additional burden is identical, almost word for word, with the declarations made in this House when it was suggested that we should take children out of the mines. It was said that the mining industry would be injured; in many cases it was said that it would be ruined. On the contrary, it was the beginning of the prosperity of the mining industry when the hours were reduced to a rational figure and the remuneration was improved; and one need not be prophetic to assert with absolute certainty that not until Parliament recognises its responsibility towards the agricultural workers and raises their wage standards to a proper level—not a slave's level, as it is to-day—reduces the hours of labour and grants them this holiday, will agriculture become a national industry worthy of the name.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: One or two observations, even threats, which the Minister made, tended—I am sure not on purpose—to give rise to implications which I did not quite understand. He said that this was a non-contentious Bill. Indeed, I hope it is, in the general principles and ideas which it contains, but, so far as I know, there is no Parliamentary class of non-contentious Bill. There are Private Bills and Public Bills. This is a very short Bill and has only two operative Clauses, but, when nearly all the Amendments on the Order Paper are out of order, to suggest that the Bill will somehow break down if we devote two or three hours discussion to it, is somewhat of a reflection upon this Committee, which the Minister does not really need to make. Nor do I think he ought to threaten us with danger to the fate of the Bill if we discuss it carefully. It is a very short Bill and there are only one or two main points. I think my main Amendment raises all the points. My original Amendment was to leave out

the local by-laws but I have been asked to put that Amendment through formally.
On the first Amendment the Minister has very wisely met the House by undertaking to reconsider the whole matter, especially in consultation with Members of the Amulree Committee. As regards these next three lines, I would ask the Minister whether he could not see his way to make some similar announcement. From what I hear there are people who do not know what this proviso means, but, as I read it, it does not mean that a board cannot make a holiday of seven days. A board can make one set of three days and another set of three days. The question is not the total amount of the holiday, but as to the form in which the holiday is to be taken. The Clause says:
holidays for periods [not] exceeding in the aggregate seven days in any period of twelve months, or, in the case of a [agricultural] worker…of continuous periods exceeding three consecutive days.
I think that is the true meaning of the proviso. A committee can given seven days in all, but not more than a period of three consecutive days.
I frankly admit that the proviso carries out paragraph 146 of the report of the Amulree Committee, but I agree with the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that there appear to be two views on the matter in this Committee, one, and it seems to be the Government view, is that we must have the report, the whole report and nothing but the report of a committee which has been set up. The other view, which seems to be the normal procedure of this House, is that the reports of committees are often the basis upon which Bills are constructed, but that is their only purpose, and the House, making full allowance for all those things, legislates as it thinks fit. Could not the Minister, under the first part of his proviso, provide for the agricultural worker in the same way as he has done in regard to trade boards for the industrial worker? Could he not approach the National Farmers' Union, in the interval between the Committee stage and Report stage, and see whether he could reach the same kind of agreement under this part of the proviso as we hope he will be able to obtain under the other part? I ask him very respectfully to take that course.

8.40 p.m.

Sir Louis Smith: [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I shall keep the Committee for only two minutes. When I read the particular item in the Clause that differentiates between the industrial and agricultural workers, I sympathised very much with the agricultural workers, and I asked the Minister on the Second Reading whether he could give consideration to this matter upon the Committee stage. I have listened to every speech that has been made on this Amendment, hoping that I should hear from some of my agricultural Friends some really cogent arguments why these holidays could not usefully and easily be given to the agricultural labourer, in the same way as to the industrial worker. One must remember that when a man in industry goes on holiday the work is stopped. Production is entirely stopped unless the employer finds another man to fill that man's place. He has to keep his works going with another staff, or see his mill or factory stopped. The farmer does not look at the matter in quite the same way. The agricultural worker does not need to go on holiday in the summer time because he lives in the open air in much healthier surroundings than does the industrial worker, and he might quite well wish to go for his holiday to London or some other large town. He can do this in less favourable weather.
Having regard to the fact that the farmer has the whole year from which to choose holiday periods for his labourers, there seems no reason why we should make this differentiation, and I would ask the Minister, as other Members of the Committee have done, to give this matter further consideration before the Report stage, in consultation with the National Farmers' Union. The right hon. Gentleman would find the farmers as wishful as anybody to be fair to the agricultural labourers, and that he would meet their views, taking the long view, if the same holidays were given to the agricultural labourers as to industrial workers. I ask the Minister to give this matter further consideration and, if not now, at any rate within a reasonable period, to consult the National Farmers' Union, with a view to this differentiation being removed.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: If there are any hon. or right hon. Gentlemen who feel distress

that this subject should be discussed, it is no fault of hon. Gentlemen who want to speak about it, but the fault of the Minister who has rejected all appeals from his own side or from this side that he should reconsider the matter. Occasionally, arrangements are made between the Front Benches and through the usual official channels, under which proposals are to go through by a certain time, but sometimes there arises from the back benches some sign of healthful and vigorous Debate. On this occasion it is for the Front Bench to meet the demands which are put forward and not for us to acquiesce in demands being made to push Bills through, contrary to all wishes expressed in every quarter of the Committee, because the Clock says Eight or a Quarter past Eight.
Two kinds of speech have been made by Members of the Committee, the first urging us not to divide on this issue. I noticed that when the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) hinted that a Division on this issue would be unpopular on the benches opposite, the Minister of Labour seized with avidity on that point and alleged that that was the reason why the discussion was being continued. Why did he feel that? Is his conscience uneasy about this proposal? Does he feel that, if this goes before the agricultural labourers as an additional example of the invidious distinction which is made against them in almost every legislative proposal affecting workers, they will rebel against it? If so, that is not a reason why we should avoid a Division or discontinue discussion, but a reason why we should press the Minister to meet the representations which have been made to him from every quarter of the Committee.
I do not apologise, in spite of the unpopularity of continuing this discussion, for giving a few more reasons why the proposal to omit these words should be accepted, or, at least, why the Minister should promise to reconsider it. I believe that the Committee will do itself credit if it insists on this being done. Two reasons have been given against accepting the Amendment. The first has been the reason of cost, and the second the reason of the indispensability of the agricultural workers concerned. As regards the reason of cost, there can be no dispute that, whenever any proposal throughout the


last two centuries has been brought forward in the House of Commons to ameliorate or improve the condition of working people or of the working classes generally, that reason has been brought forward on the other side every time. Nevertheless, ways and means have always been found, and in the end it has been found that the proposal, when put into operation, has had beneficent results, and has even improved the financial prospects of the industry concerned.
I recognise, contrary to what is said by some hon. Members on this side, that farmers, or at any rate small farmers, who constitute the vast majority of our farming population, apart, of course, from the agricultural labourers, are passing through a very difficult time financially. The large farmer will have no objection to finding the money, but the small farmer may have some difficulty in doing so. I believe, however, that even so, and great as is my sympathy with the small farmer, it will ultimately be to his good if we advance this question of seven days' holiday with pay, so that he, with his wages boards, will be able to bring his labourers on to the same standards of dignity and right as the labourers in other industries; and that in the end he will get better and more loyal and efficient service from his labourers than he gets to-day. Even if it should prove impossible for the farmer to meet this cost now, surely there are ways and means of giving him some assistance.
I listened with some amazement to the financial picture which some hon. Members opposite drew of the present Government straining at the leash to bring in Measures for the good of agriculture, and hon. Members on this side resisting. What would there be to prevent the Government from bringing forward a Measure to give some sort of assistance to farmers, where a proper case could be made out, in meeting the cost of this proposal? I know that it would not be in order for us on this side to propose it, but there is nothing to prevent the Minister from bringing it forward. It would cost less than £1,250,000 if the Government were to shoulder the whole cost of giving holidays with pay to agricultural labourers. They cannot do it under this Bill, but, if they are going to make such a gigantic obstacle of the cost, and are going to allow that obstacle to perpetuate the invidious distinction

against this worthy class—the salt of the earth, as hon. Members in all quarters of the House know them to be—there is no reason why the Government, who are so free with their millions in other directions, should not consider bringing in a Measure for the purpose.
Finally, there is the question of indispensability. The hon. and gallant Member for Cambridgeshire (Captain Briscoe) gave us a very clear argument when he said it would be possible for the farmer to dispense with his labourers for three days but not for seven days. I submit that that is a fallacious argument. The cases in which farmers would find the greatest difficulty in dispensing with their labourers, apart from harvest time, are those of dairy farmers. I should say that a considerable proportion of our dairy farming is carried out by farmers with one labourer, who is the milker, horseman, cowman, and everything else on the farm. If such a farmer has 20 cows, he and his labourer both have to get up at the crack of dawn and set to work to milk the cows and get the milk off to the wholesaler. If the agricultural labourer is given seven days' holiday with pay, either the farmer has to milk 20 cows instead of 10, doubling his work and getting up an hour and a-half or two hours before dawn, or he has to find some method of getting substitute assistance. I venture to say that it is just as difficult for him to do that on three mornings as on seven mornings, and, if we make the period seven days, we shall find that more effective ways and means will be devised in order to make this proposal work properly.
I hope we shall bring to an end the discreditable attitude of the House in dealing with agricultural labourers, who represent the biggest industry in this country, and if the Minister feels that he must adhere to any arrangement he has made, I think he has been very ill-advised if he has given pledges against an Amendment in this direction. He must observe, as a Parliamentarian who is not without experience, the growing dislike which the House feels of accepting cut-and-dried, stereotyped legislation, and in a case like this, where a proposal which he has brought forward has shown itself to be unpalatable in every quarter of the House, he would do himself credit by accepting the Amendment which has now been moved.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause"

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 10, at the end, insert:
(3) For the purposes of the last foregoing Sub-section the expression 'Week' means, in relation to any worker whose rates of wages are fixed under the said Act of 1924 or the said Act of 1937 a period of seven days, and in relation to any other worker such period as may be determined by the wage regulating authority to be his normal working week."—[Mr. E. Brown.]

9.1 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, after "shall," to insert "unless the direction otherwise provides."
The reason for this Amendment is that my attention was called to certain difficulties which might arise in connection with the Factories Act, 1937, and the Shops Acts, 1912 to 1936. The Subsection has no application to agriculture, as agricultural workers are not at present entitled to statutory holidays. It affects only trade boards, and those only to a limited extent. Under the Factories Act, 1937, the occupier of a factory is required to allow every woman and young person in the factory certain days as holidays. The effect of the Amendment is to permit the trade board to take these statutory holidays into account. This will enable the board in

the case of a Bank holiday falling in the holiday week, to include the Bank holiday as a directed holiday, and to pay holiday remuneration for the whole week, including the Bank holiday. Without the Amendment, the board would be able so to include the Bank holiday for male workers, for whom it would not be a statutory holiday, but unable to include it for women workers and young persons. The Amendment enables the board to avoid this anomaly. With regard to the Shops Acts, these days are not days of statutory holidays for most workers. Holidays in the distributive trades vary according to conditions of service. The majority of the workers are entitled to days holiday in every week: that is to say, a weekly half-holiday, plus Sunday or a day in lieu; some are entitled to receive only Sunday or a day in lieu, and some to receive only a half-holiday, while some are not entitled to any holiday at all. The Amendment will entitle the trade board to take all these into account in their directions.

Amendment agreed to.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, at the end, to insert:
and shall normally fall during the period of Summer Time.


If we turn to the recommendations of the Amulree Committee, we find that in paragraph 143 they say:
The period of holiday should be arranged to take place between the beginning of Summer Time and the beginning of October in each year. Where, however, it is not practicable to do so, the holiday should take place at such other period of the year as may be decided.
If I were in the same state of mental confusion as Members on the Government Front Bench, I should be entitled to argue that the holiday for everybody should take place during the Summer Time period. That would be, on an analogy to the wording we had earlier, obviously entirely contrary to the common sense of the English language. I do not propose to take up that point now. I fully appreciate that there may be cases—though they must be very few indeed—and allowance must be made for them. Therefore, the Amendment which I am moving is wholly in accord with the recommendation of the Amulree Committee. From that point of view, I do not see that the Government can take the slightest possible exception, and I hope that they will incorporate these words in the Bill.
It is the more desirable because an hon. Member opposite just now actually put forward the argument that, as far as agricultural workers were concerned, it really did not matter to them whether they had their holidays in summer or winter. In fact, it might suit them rather better in the winter, because they are used to being out in the fields all day long, and a visit to Town in the autumn or winter would very well fit in with their arrangements. That is not how I understand the feelings of the agricultural population. They, like everybody else, desire to have their holidays when the warm breezes are blowing and the sun is shining, and the countryside is beautiful. There will be no doubt that in the vast majority of cases the various boards concerned will make this recommendation, but we want to be on the safe side. It is a good thing for Parliament to show its interest in holidays by giving a direction of this kind by inserting actual words in the Measure, so that the board shall be under no misapprehension at all as to the will of Parliament and I hope very much, therefore, that we shall implement the recommendations of the

Amulree Committee by adopting the words which I now propose.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) referred to what he was pleased to call the mental confusion of those who sit on this bench. When I first saw his Amendment as originally worded, I felt confirmed in my own view that on this and other issues the hon. Member himself was in a state of muddle and uncertainty. The effect of the Amendment, as put down, would have been to prevent a number of trade boards and agricultural wages committees from giving any holiday with pay at all, and even in its amended form, though it is certainly less obnoxious, I feel that the Committee will not be wise to accept it. If the trade boards and agricultural wages committees can be relied upon, as has been suggested from the other side, to act reasonably, they can be relied upon to act reasonably in this case. The inclusion of words of this kind which may have the effect of acting in a somewhat restrictive sense is neither necessary nor desirable.

Mr. Mander: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain why the Government on this occasion are rejecting the recommendation of the Amulree Committee? It is that in which I am interested.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are not.

Mr. Mander: You are.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

9.9 P.m.

Mr. T. Williams: May I ask a question with regard to Sub-section (3), which says:
The holidays which a worker is entitled to be allowed in pursuance of any direction given under this Section shall be in addition to any holidays or half-holidays to which he may be entitled under any other enactment.
Will that apply to a custom which almost has the force of enactment where agricultural workers in almost every county in the country have negotiated and secured four or five bank holidays? Are we to understand clearly and definitely that any


holidays given will be apart from those that it was customary to give prior to the passing of this Measure?

Mr. E. Brown: The answer is, that in that respect the Bill does not make any alteration in the accustomed practice.

CLAUSE 2.—(Holiday remuneration.)

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, to leave out "receive pay."

The Deputy-Chairman: Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds, perhaps I ought to make it clear to the Committee that the Amendment deals with the same point as that covered by a later Amendment in his name, and, therefore, he must argue the two Amendments together.

Mr. Johnston: I willingly accept your suggestion, and I am sure that it will make for brevity in the discussion. Clause 2 of the Bill provides that the workers who get holidays shall receive pay in respect of the holiday. The second part of the Clause declares that the trade boards or agricultural wages committees shall have power to fix, as the Minister wants it, separate wages rates. The words in the Bill are "additional minimum rates of wages," and the Minister proposes in a subsequent Amendment to substitute the word "separate" for "additional," which will mean that workers who are under trade boards or agricultural wages committees are to receive pay for their holiday periods, but that the rate of pay is to be a different rate from that at which they are normally employed.

Mr. E. Brown: indicated dissent.

Mr. Johnston: If the Minister says that that is not so, I shall be glad to sit down at once.

Mr. E. Brown: Not necessarily. You could argue both ways. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would propose to say that a minimum should be fixed, and there might be others who would argue that it was a maximum. The Bill as it stands gives neither minimum nor maximum.

Mr. Johnston: I have not gone further than to say that they are to have power to fix different rates of pay. The wages

board fix, say 1s. an hour for a normal working hour, and the Minister says that they shall have power to fix pay for the holiday period, but that they may fix a different rate from the 1s. an hour. It means that the workers are not to receive holidays at their normal rates of pay.

Mr. E. Brown: indicated dissent.

Mr. Johnston: With all deference to the Minister, that is what is specifically being put into Clause 2. It is perfectly correct to say that a wages board might say, in defiance of Clause 2 of the Bill, "We are going to insist that the rate of wages shall be the same as the normal rate of wages," but the Minister is specifically directing that the wages committees have power to fix different rates of wages for the holiday period. What does all this mean? It means in effect that the workers are not going to get holidays with pay at the normal rate of wages, and they will, in fact, in most cases, be getting holidays at lower rates of pay than those at which they are normally employed. That is how we interpret this Clause, and the Minister himself really makes my point more clear by the Amendments he has put on the Order Paper for subsequent discussion when he asks that, instead of the words "additional minimum rates of wages," it shall be "separate minimum rates of wages." He is making it clear to the agricultural wages committees and the trade boards that what is intended is that they shall have power to pay lower rates for the holiday periods than is paid during the normal working period. With great deference to the Minister and his advisers, I suggest that that is not implementing the intention, the spirit and the bargain of the Amulree Committee that holidays with pay are to be granted, if it means that they are to be given power to give holidays with reduced pay.
If the Bill passes in its present form I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman finds that as a result of the working of the Measure there are masses of his fellow-countrymen from Lands End to John o' Groats who will have their holidays, whether of seven days or whatever the period may be, with pay, but with pay that may be one-half, one-third, one-fourth or a mere fraction of their normal working rate of pay, he will be seriously grieved and disturbed. Therefore, I put it to him that this Clause as


it stands would enable a wages committee to fix holidays with pay at a penny an hour, and they would still be within the terms of the Clause. If that were done, the intention of Parliament and the intention of the Amulree Committee would be abandoned and Parliament would have failed in its duty towards the people we are trying to assist.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: There are two or three sets of Amendments which deal with this point. I think the one which the right hon. Gentleman has moved is in better language than those put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) and myself. When I read this Amendment on the Order Paper I could scarcely believe that it would be necessary. One may assume that when people speak of holidays with pay they mean holidays with the normal rate of pay. Perhaps I am wasting time in stressing the point. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will tell us that the Amendment is unnecessary, but failing that assurance I feel that this discussion is perhaps more important than it seemed likely to be. When a clerk gets a holiday with pay one does not mean that he gets pay at a less rate than he ordinarily earns in the office. Therefore, one assumes that the workers affected under this Clause will not receive less than their ordinary pay. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that that is the intention he has in mind. I had hoped that my right hon. Friend's Amendment would be accepted at once, because it is necessary to carry out the spirit of what is ordinarily understood by the term "holidays with pay."

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Riley: I raised this matter on the Second Reading, but I got no satisfaction, and am glad that my right hon. Friend is seeking to deal with the point by Amendment in Committee. It is important that we should get clearly in our minds the fact that the Clause as it stands gives no guarantee whatever that these statutory bdies will not fix for the holiday period less rates of wages than those normally received by the workers. On that point I do not think there can be any doubt. If there is, I should like the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary to point out any words in the Clause which say that the payment shall

be equal to the normal week's wage. In the absence of such security, we are entitled to say that the Bill is not carrying out the will of Parliament. Whenever we have spoken of establishing holidays with pay, it has always been in our minds that the payment for the holiday would be at the ordinary rate of wage which the worker received. It would be a departure from the whole spirit which has been shown in this House in discussions on previous Bills that whenever holidays with pay are contemplated it means pay at the proper remuneration, the normal wage.
There may be some trades, which are not concerned with the trade boards, where for various reasons the weekly wage is an abnormal amount. There may be highly laborious occupations in the steel and iron industries where men may earn on piece work £12, £14 or £18 a week. In those cases one could well understand that there might be some doubt whether the employers would be called upon to give amounts of that kind on holiday. That question has to be faced in the future. To-night we are considering occupations which come under the trade boards, the agricultural wages committees and the Road Haulage Board. We are concerned with people who rarely get more than£2 a week. In the case of the agricultural workers the wages are anything from 30s. to 37s. a week. Surely, it is not too much to expect that when we establish holidays with pay the employer should be called upon to provide in the holiday period pay equal to the full week's wage. I suggest to the Minister that if he cannot accept my right hon. Friend's Amendment he should bring forward words to meet the point on the Report stage.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I hope to convince the right hon. Gentleman that the form of the Bill is better than the amended form which he suggests. His form would not do, because of the structure of the wages board system. We have to deal with a most elaborate system, concerned with time rates, piece rates and a whole mass of complications. If his Amendment were accepted it would mean a most elaborate Clause, with all the machinery for it.

Mr. Riley: The right hon. Gentleman must know quite well that there are already in operation holiday agreements in


various trades where all these points have been met. The printing trade for the last 20 years has been giving, almost without exception, the full rate of wages during holidays.

Mr. E. Brown: There is no dispute between us there; but the difficulties of giving directions in the Bill are well illustrated by the word "additional" which might make it appear obligatory to pay higher wages than the normal. That is why I have an Amendment later, to make it clear that "additional" does not mean an addition to the normal rate. It was the hon. Member's own speech on the Second Reading that drew my attention to it. The issue is very simple. The hon. Member desires payment at the normal rate. So do we. That being so, let us forecast what is likely to happen. The order is not made by the board. It is made by the Minister and, if he is dissatisfied with any proposal put up to him by the board, he has the power to refer it back. It is inconceivable that any board would put up for ratification to the Minister a rate, whether for time or piece work, much inferior to the normal rate in the industry. Indeed I cannot conceive that they will want to fix lower rates. It may very well be, if we can get the atmosphere of good will for which I have been striving, when this question becomes a matter of detailed discussion in the committees the natural good feeling between the two sides will lead to the result that Members may say, "We will decide to give this rate," and it may easily be higher than the normal rate. What the Bill does is to leave the trade board completely free to make its own recommendation, and that is much the wiser way, rather than encumbering the Bill with elaborate machinery which might very easily make the earnings question much more difficult than it otherwise would be.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Unless I misunderstand the English language, if the right hon. Gentleman's suggested Amendment to insert the word "separate" does not mean that they can fix a rate higher or lower, it does not mean anything at all. He talks about the highly complicated machinery of the county wages committees. Of course it was highly complicated in 1924 but it is no longer complicated now. In every county in the

country they have already fixed a minimum wage for agricultural labourers. Every single category of workers now has its minimum wage fixed by the county committees and there is no complication about it at all. If, with his Amendment, he allows them to fix separate minimum rates, clearly those separate rates may be either up or down. We all expect that common sense is going to prevail with the trade boards and agricultural wages committees, but is there any real reason why we should leave it to them to exercise common sense, discretion and restraint? The right hon. Gentleman's statement in no way removes the doubt that is felt on these benches. If he would accept this Amendment, that covers the point. I do not understand why he should refuse to accept the general feeling of the Committee.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he meant when he said it was the Government's intention, as it was clearly the intention of the Amulree Committee, that the pay for holidays should be the normal rate. I cannot conceive a wages committee fixing a rate of, say, 1s. an hour for 51 weeks and deciding that there shall be 1s. 6d. on a holiday. He said it was his intention that at least the normal rate should be paid. Will he tell us why he has simply put in the words "receive pay"? They are clearly put in for a purpose. There are industries where the pay for holidays is at a lower rate than the normal. There are sections of the clothing trade where that is so. We are anxious to prevent the Minister putting in a provision which opens the door to committees to pay lower rates during holiday periods than for normal working periods. If he says that all that stands between us is a form of words and that our intentions are the same, we need not take up any further time, because the Minister and his advisers can get a proper form of words. But he did not explain what was wrong with my words and he certainly has not explained why he put in these words "receive pay," and why he does not clearly and specifically lay down a direction to the wages committees that they shall pay the normal rate for holiday periods. If he would make the point clear it would expedite the passage of the Bill.

9.34 P.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I have done my best to make the point clear. It is clear to me that the best way to expedite the working of what we all desire is not to ply the Committee with unnecessary directions. The basis of the right hon. Gentleman's argument is fear. I do not share that fear. He said it was unthinkable that they would fix one wage for 51 weeks in the year and a higher wage for the remaining week. Why is it not equally unthinkable that they should fix one wage for 51 weeks and a lower wage for the other week? I think we shall expedite the work of these committees much better if we leave it in the form it is, especially as I have explained that you can only express it in a technical form if you wish to cover all the varied differences that there are in the various trades and the various trade boards. I am afraid that I cannot make it any clearer. It is clear enough to me. I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's fears, and I ask the Committee to share my hopes rather than his fears.

Mr. Jagger: Will the Minister of Labour carry his assurance just a little further? Will he say definitely that he will not regularise rates which are notably lower than the average earnings of the worker?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member cannot expect me to give a pledge in those terms. I have given an indication of my mind on the matter and it must rest there. The hon. Member knows that there is great force in what I have said about the necessity for a very wide and technical drafting to deal with this difficult Section, because the rates change from grade to grade inside an industry, and the difficulty of fixing at any time what the remuneration for holidays should be is a most difficult matter.

Mr. Cassells: Can the right hon. Gentleman point to any part of this Clause which compels a wage committee to have regard to the average weekly earnings?

Mr. Brown: No. The fact is that there are two entirely distinct points of view on the matter. There are those who are always talking about collective agreements but do not seem to have any confidence in good will. We have drafted the Bill on the basis that if we are to go forward with this movement we must get the maximum good will, which I am

sure this Clause will secure much more easily than by the method suggested in the Amendment.

9.37 P.m.

Mr. R. Robinson: I was pleased indeed to hear the Minister say that in his mind it was clear that the rate for holidays with pay should not be less than the rate paid when a man was in work. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that!"] I thought so, and it is in accordance with my idea of holidays with pay and I think with the idea of most hon. Members. All we are trying to do in the Amendment is to make sure that the Bill remains a Holiday with Pay Bill and does not degenerate into holidays without pay Bill. That is the danger, and I am sure the Minister of Labour does not want that to happen. The Bill can be interpreted only by the printed words. It is not possible for a court of law to go beyond what is printed and say that Parliament had some other intentions. I would urge the Minister to see whether he cannot find some form of words which would provide that the rate of holiday pay granted by trade boards does not fall below the minimum rate of wage which the trade boards themselves have authorised.

9.39 P.m.

Mr. Mander: I should like to see incorporated in the Bill a provision which would make it incumbent to pay holidays with full pay, and I hope the Minister will consider the possibility of doing that in view of the appeals he has been receiving from all sides of the Committee. At the same time I feel that there is a good deal in what he says. We have been arguing at earlier stages that we must trust the trade boards to negotiate and to arrive at a fair solution. That also applies to this matter. It is quite unthinkable that a trade board would arrive at a decision to pay anything less than the full rate of pay, and certainly unthinkable that the Minister of Labour would authorise any such rate of pay or that the House of Commons would not create a tremendous row if he did so. While I hope it will be possible to do what we are demanding, I feel that the Minister has made out a fairly good case for trusting these boards.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: I cannot understand why the Minister is not prepared


to accept what is the considered judgment of the Committee on this matter. No doubt he is right in regard to his view of the position of the trade boards, but there is no specific instruction that it is to be the normal rate, and the Minister must forgive us if we are suspicious in this respect. He will agree that we have had a much longer experience of negotiations than he has. Some of us have spent the whole of our lives in different industries meeting employers of labour, and we have had to argue for weeks in order to get an increase of one penny per hour. If we are suspicious it is because we know there is a tendency to reduce rather than increase wages. But I should have thought that the Minister would have accepted these words in order to remove what may become a grave anomaly.
One can conceive of a committee deciding upon a rate for the holiday week which will be less than the normal weekly wage. In that case the person would have to seek assistance elsewhere, he could not take his holiday on half-pay. The Minister, I think, should take this into consideration, and ought in the Bill itself to make sure that such a situation will not arise. We ought to have the intention of Parliament made clear in every single word in the Bill. The Minister should put in the Bill the intentions to which he has given expression. Persons who are normally under trade boards or agricultural committees are receiving a very low wage, and if these persons are to receive less in the holiday week than they normally get they cannot take their holiday and would have to seek assistance from the public assistance committee in order to enable them to take their holiday. The Minister should avoid anomalies of that kind arising.

9.43 P.m.

Mr. Markham: I feel great sympathy with the plea made by the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) for a reconsideration of the point at a later stage. I agree that there is considerable force in the words of the Minister of Labour, that it is the determination to see that holidays are granted with pay. But we have no definition of the word "pay," and I should like to see a definition. To my mind "pay" means the average weekly earning of the man, and surely it is not beyond the wisdom of this House

to devise a phrase which will meet that requirement. Some of the Amendments refer to the minimum rates of pay, but I should much prefer the term "average rates of pay." I submit that it is not beyond the power of the Minister to see that, at a later stage, an Amendment is introduced which will make average rates of pay the right of every man when he has a week's holiday.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Cassells: I was quite unconvinced by the Minister's explanation, and I thought that the rather virulent attack which he made, following the perfectly straightforward question which I put to him, was entirely unjustified. So far as the right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question that I put. It is a question to which hon. Members are entitled to have an answer. The purpose of the Bill is that the men shall receive holidays with pay. I agree with the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Markham) that the meaning of the word "pay" is pay which has regard to the average weekly earnings. The Clause is quite specific in its terms, and, interpreting it from a legal point of view, to my mind it makes it clear that the wages committee is not bound in any way. For example, it is not bound to have the slightest regard to the average weekly earnings. What the Clause says is that
Where a wage regulating authority in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act direct that any workers shall be entitled to be allowed holidays, the authority shall make provision for securing that the workers shall receive pay.
What is the legal definition of the word "pay"? There is no definition of it in the Bill. It may mean a penny a week, five shillings a week, or absolutely nothing. If we refer to other Acts of Parliament, we find that there is a definite instruction given to the various courts dealing with the fixation of wages. To take an outstanding example, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, when a man is disabled he is entitled to apply to the courts to receive weekly compensation on a weekly basis which is capable of being accurately assessed by the court. Why is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman, in exercise of the high office which he holds, if he is honest in the statements which he makes that the Government desire at the earliest possible moment to give holidays with pay, to say that, as far as the definition of pay is


concerned, the wages committee must have due regard to the average weekly earnings. If he is not prepared to do that, hon. Members on this side and the country will know precisely how to judge him.

9.49 P.m.

Miss Ward: I think this is a point which requires most careful consideration, and I have been trying to think the matter out while listening to the Debate. I do not for one moment doubt that the trade boards, the negotiating machinery and the Minister of Labour are absolutely genuine in their desire to get a fair and straight deal for the men concerned, but I am not certain that my very small experience of recent events in relation to holidays with pay has been altogether a very happy one. I want to be quite certain that, by leaving the Clause as it is, we are doing the thing which my right hon. Friend and the whole Committee desire to do.
I know that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is very difficult in seven months to examine all the voluntary agreements that have been entered into between industrial bodies outside the scope of the trade boards and to see exactly how those agreements have worked out in relation to the wages that are normally paid for a week's work; but, although I am not in a position to speak with any great degree of accuracy on the point, I think I do not mislead the House when I say that, under some of the voluntary agreements which are based on wages—that is to say, week by week, there is a percentage put aside which is paid out to the worker when the holiday comes—the amount of money available, in some instances at any rate, is not equivalent to the amount which would be drawn if the men had worked during that time and the full rate of wages had been paid to them. I agree that in this Bill we are dealing with an entirely different situation, but that makes it all the more important that we should see that the matter is fairly and squarely dealt with.
There is another point which I would like to develop briefly, and on which I should like to have the Minister's opinion Supposing that, for argument's sake, when the different parties were engaged in negotiating an agreement, there was a discussion as to the best method of giving a holiday with pay, and it was found

that there was a great number of men drawing very inadequate wages who, if they were married and had large families, would not be able to take a holiday, would it be possible, with the Clause drafted as it is at present, so to amend the scheme, by agreement, that the people who were getting wages which did not make it possible for them to take a holiday, would get wages which would enable them to do so? I give that as an instance, because I think it is of the utmost importance. Some 12 months ago a very well-known colliery company——

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Lady is going rather beyond the scope of the Amendment.

Miss Ward: I bow to your Ruling, Captain Bourne, but I consider that the point is a very important one, and although I am not allowed to develop my argument, I think that probably my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is aware of the argument that I am anxious to develop. I put the point in this way: Would it be possible, with good will, if the Clause were left as it is at present, and it were possible to get complete agreement within the scheme as negotiated, to see to it that men who are drawing wages which would not be——

The Deputy-Chairman: I must point out to the hon. Lady that this Clause has nothing to do with schemes and negotiations. It deals with the question of what a trade board, an agricultural wages committee, or a road haulage wages authority can do.

Miss Ward: As I understood the discussion, the point was what the rate of pay would be, and what decision would be taken by the various boards as to the rate that would be paid. What I want to know is whether, if the Clause is left as it is, it will be possible so to amend the whole scheme that a man who is drawing low wages may be enabled to go away for a holiday. I understand that the desire of the House is to ensure not only that there should be holidays with pay, but that it should be possible for every man to get a holiday, to go away and to have a complete change of surroundings, and to take his wife and family wih him. I consider that it is most important that this matter should be adequately discussed and that we should not pass a Bill which does not make provision for a


whole variety of circumstances. I am afraid I have explained my point rather badly, but that is because I have been limited in what I could say. I hope that my right hon. Friend understands the point, and I would like him to develop it, if he can within the Ruling, so that we can make the best possible job of this Bill.

9.55 P.m.

Mr. Logan: I am at a loss to understand what difficulty the Minister finds in accepting the Amendment. If anybody can tell me what is meant by the words in the Bill "shall receive pay" I shall be very pleased indeed. The Minister expressed the pious conviction that nobody would reduce the normal rate of pay during the holiday period. Anybody who is in employment has no difficulty in understanding what is meant by "the normal rate of pay," but the words "shall receive pay" contain no information as to the amount of money which a person is entitled to receive during holidays and why such words should be put into an Act of Parliament is beyond my imagination. This is a very subtle Clause. Anybody can read anything into it. I do not want any subtlety in a Clause of this kind. There is no use in the Minister wagging his head about it. We want straight minds in dealing with these matters and we dia not want subtleties. What is intended in this Bill is holidays with pay as generally understood. The Minister on all occasions when it is to his advantage, is able to use language to make clear to hon. Members what is meant by particular provisions, but he is not able to tell us what these words mean.
It is no use the Minister assuming that he will be there for all time. He will not and the definition of these words will rest with others. It is not what the Minister thinks that other people will do that matters. It is the words of the Act which matter. If the normal pay in any of these classifications is £2 or 35s., anyone who comes under any of these boards will naturally think that the normal rate of pay will be given to him for his holidays. But the Act will not say so and the Minister is not able to say that that will be the case. I hope I am not upsetting the Minister in any way—though I would do so if I possibly could—but I

want him to explain the meaning of these words which he is asking us to accept. From the point of view of the English language these words do not mean anything. From the point of the view of determining what pay a person shall receive for holidays they have no meaning whatever. It is absurd for the Minister to go forward to the country with a proposition called "holidays with pay," when it may mean, according to these words, a holiday with reduced pay.
If people are expected to accept reduced pay for their holiday period then let us face the situation honestly. Let the Minister rise here and state exactly what the position is and that we want to give these boards the right to give smaller amounts to these people when they are on holidays. This Clause as it is now, would permit them to do so. I have had some experience of the interpretation of Acts of Parliament by judges and I know that it is not the pious wishes of a Minister that are taken into account but the words of the Acts themselves. If a person is allowed only £1 or 25s. will they have to seek relief? Will such persons have to go to the public assistance committees for subsistence allowances, instead of being able to go on holidays, although the State has said that they are to be allowed holidays with pay. Is that to be the case simply because of the illiberality and the smallness of mind of a Minister who is not able to understand the plain language of an Amendment?
The Amendment states that the normal rate of pay shall be given, and the normal rates of pay are not excessive. We are living in an age of miracles and we have a miracle Minister, but I do not think we have yet seen the miracle of additional rates of pay being given to those engaged in industry. Surely to goodness it is time that those on the Government Front Bench were able to make up their minds and let the workers know what they mean. I am not able to understand their minds, nor am I able to understand the English in which they phrase their intentions. Cannot they get down to elementary facts and put this provision in plain English which the ordinary man will understand, and say that if his wages are £2 a week, he will receive £2 a week and not £1 a week, when he goes on holiday?

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: On the Second Reading I suggested that the words "for some" should be inserted in the Title of the Bill after the words "Holidays with Pay." After these discussions and the Minister's explanations I realise that it should be further amended and that it is really "A Bill for holidays with some pay, for some workers." The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Macmillan) said that the discussion reminded him of "Alice in Wonderland." Listening to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) I thought that somebody else had got into wonderland. She was endeavouring to interpret the mind of the Minister and suggested that this Bill might result in somebody receiving more pay during the holiday period than they received while working. If the Minister is submitting that proposition seriously as a reason against the Amendment, I ask him to put it on one side. We are prepared to take the risk of the possibility of more money being paid for holidays than for working periods.
Again, I would emphasise the point that the actual wording of an Act is the only thing that matters once the Act has been passed. The trade union of which I am a member some time ago had a dispute with employers. The trouble with the Minister is that he has not been in touch with the workers' side in recent days. It may be that the time when he represented the workers, or thought that he did, has passed, and that that accounts to some extent for his attitude. In the case to which I refer we were discussing the interpretation of a Section of an Act of Parliament and we spent £800 in seeking to prove that Parliament intended that a reference to a bobbin meant a certain type of thing which everybody realised it ought to mean. But the employers, acting upon the wording of the Act, proved that a bobbin could be the size of a loom and in consequence were able to save 5 per cent.—all because the Minister of

that day had a great deal of faith in the people who were to interpret that Act of Parliament.

I suggest that under this Bill as it stands you can have as many agreements as there are wages boards, and the same argument will apply when these boards send up their agreements for ratification to the Minister. We have heard that this Bill has been drawn according to the report of the Amulree Committee and that we must not depart from that report, except that the Minister is allowed to depart from it when he thinks fit. Every agreement that is sent up to the Minister for ratification will be the result of a board's negotiation between the employers, the employés, and the individuals who represent the community on that board, and coming to the Minister thus, it will not be for him to say whether or not he considers it reasonable; it will be for him to say whether or not he is prepared to ratify it, so that you can have as many different agreements under this Clause as there are wages boards in the country.

This Bill means nothing at all to my people, at any rate, but for those who will come under it, let us see to it that they get something in the nature of a square deal. These boards have been set up to establish minimum rates, and all the complications that the right hon. Gentleman has spoken about are now in existence. Surely it is not asking too much to say that for the one week out of the 52 weeks that this Bill is intended to cover the same principle shall apply as applies during the other 51 weeks. There is no earthly reason, except the leaving of the door open to pay less than the accepted minimum wages, why these words should be in the Clause.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 141.

Division No. 309.]
AYES.
[10.7 p.m.


Acland-Troyle, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Baxter, A. Beverley
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)


Albery, Sir Irving
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Beechman, N. A.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)


Allen, Lt-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Bernays, R. H.
Bull, B. B.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Birchall, Sir J. D.
Butcher, H. W.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Blair, Sir R.
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Atholl, Duchess of
Boulton, W. W.
Carver, Major W. H.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Cary, R. A.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Brass, Sir W.
Castlereagh, Viscount




Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Harbord, A.
Porritt, R. W.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Harvey, Sir G.
Radford, E. A.


Channon, H.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Christie, J. A.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsbotham, H.


Clarke, Colonel R, S. (E. Grinstead)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rankin, Sir R.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hepworth, J.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Higgs, W. F.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'rS.G'gs)
Holmes, J. S.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Hopkinson, A.
Remer, J. R.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ropner, Colonel L.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hulbert, N. J.
Rowlands, G.


Cross, R. H.
Hunloke, H. P.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Crossley, A. C.
Hunter, T.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Crowder, J. F. E.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'W'gt'n)
Rusell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Rusell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Culverwpell, C. T.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
salt E. W.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


De Chair, S. S.
Kimball, L.
Selley, H. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Denville, Alfred
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Dodd, J. S.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Drewe, C.
Lees-Jones, J.
Smithers, Sir W.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Liddall, W. S.
spens, W. P.


Eastwood, J. F.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Storey, S.


Eckersley, P. T.
Lloyd, G. W.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Ellis, Sir G.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Elmley, Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. T. (Isle of Wight)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Emery, J. F.
Maitland, A.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Marsden, Commander A.
Tilchfield, Marquess of


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Touche, G. C.


Everard, W. L.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Fildes, Sir H.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Wakefield W. W.


Findlay, Sir E.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Fleming, E. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Moreing, A. C.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morgan, R. H.
Warrender, Sir V.


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Nall, Sir J.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Goldie, N. B.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Gower, Sir R. V.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Grant-Ferris, R.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Patrick, C. M.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Gretten, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
peat, C. U.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Grimston, R. V.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Peters, Dr. S. J.



Hambro, A. V.
Petherick, M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Cluse, W. S.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cocks, F. S.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Adamson, W. M.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Daggar, G.
Groves, T. E.


Ammon, C. G.
Dalton, H.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hardie, Agnes


Banfield, J. W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Harris, Sir P. A.


Barnes, A. J.
Day, H.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Barr, J.
Dobbie, W.
Hayday, A.


Batey, J.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Bellenger, F. J.
Ede, J. C.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Benson, G.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Broad, F. A.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Holdsworth, H.


Bromfield, W.
Foot, D. M.
Hopkin, D.


Buchanan, G.
Frankel, D.
Jagger, J.


Burke, W. A.
Gardner, B. W.
John, W.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.


Cassells, T.
Granville, E. L.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Charleton, H. C.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Chater, D:
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)







Kelly, W. T.
Muff, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Naylor, T. E.
Stephen, C.


Kirby, B. V.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Lathan, G.
Oliver, G. H.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Lawson. J. J.
Owen, Major G.
Stokes, R. R.


Leach, W.
Paling, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Leonard, W.
Parkinson, J. A.
Tate, Mavis C.


Leslie, J. R.
Pearson, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Lipson, D. L.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W
Thurtle, E.


Logan, D. G. 
Poole, C. C.
Tinker, J. J.


Lunn, W.
Price, M. P.
Tomlinson, G.


Macdonald. G. (Ince)
Pritt, D. N.
Viant, S. P.


McEntee, V. La T.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Walkden, A. G.


McGhee, H. G.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Walker, J.


MacLaren, A.
Ridley, G.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Maclean, N.
Ritson, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Mander, G. le M.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Westwood, J.


Markham, S. F.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Marshall, F.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Mathers, G.
Sexton, T. M.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Maxton, J.
Silverman, S. S.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Messer, F.
Simpson, F. B.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Milner, Major J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)



Montague, F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees. (K'ly)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Anderson.


Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Amendment made: In page 2, line 36, leave out "additional," and insert "separate."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, after the first "of," to insert "such."

Mr. Rhys Davies: With the insertion of the word "such" the wages paid during holidays will be confined to the one week's holiday with pay, and we are afraid that the wages ordinarily paid during bank holidays will be ruled out. May we be assured that that is not the case?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that where a bank holiday is included in a holiday given under this Bill the statutory authorities have power to give wages for that bank holiday.

Mr. Rhys Davies: That is not the point. What we want to be assured about is that when the bank holiday is in the week's holiday for which wages are paid, will the insertion of this word prevent the employer being compelled to pay for Christmas Day and Boxing Day?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the statutory holiday falls within the week for which holidays with pay have been granted, the provisions of the Bill apply. Where a wage regulating authority directs that a bank holiday may be allowed as one of the holidays directed under Clause 1, there will be power to fix holiday remuneration for that day. The sole purpose of Clause 2 is to confer upon the wage regulating authorities power to provide for the pay which is to be given in

respect of holidays granted under Clause 1.

Amendment agreed to,

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Definitions.)

Amendment made: In page 5, line 13, leave out "an additional," and insert "remuneration in accordance with a separate."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Clause, as amended. ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 223.]

RATING AND VALUATION (AIR RAID WORKS) BILL.

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

RATING AND VALUATION (AIR RAID WORKS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE(AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL.

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

10.25 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill, which comes from another place, is of some importance but I hope to deal with it shortly and, I have reason to believe from information which reaches me that it will meet with the general approval of the House. It is put forward in order to fill what I might describe as the last gap in the regulation of the hours of employment in what are known as the unregulated occupations, particularly those of van boys, errand boys and messengers, which are regarded as blind-alley occupations. The first step in this magnificent chapter of legislation was taken in the passing of the Shops Act, 1934, which, as the House will recollect, regulated the hours of employment of persons under 18 years of age, employed in or about retail shops. It included not only young persons who were in shops but also van boys and messenger boys engaged in connection with shops, as well as page boys in public restaurants. That Act came into operation at the end of 1934.
In January, 1936, my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer who was then Home Secretary appointed a committee to inquire into the hours of employment of young persons under 18 years of age who were not subject to the Shops Act of 1934, or to the Factories and Workshops Act, 1901, and who were employed in various capacities. The committee made very careful inquiries and later presented a most useful report to the House. I should like to take this opportunity on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to thank the chairman and the members of that committee for the work which they did. The committee found that there was definite need for the regulation of the hours of work of the young person who formed the subject of their inquiry and they recommended that that regulation should be made effective by statutory limitation of their hours of employment. They contemplated that young persons connected with employment in factories,

shops and warehouses would be covered by the Bill which was about to be introduced and they recommended that the remainder should be made subject to regulation by an extension of the scope of the Shops Act of 1934, subject to modification in details. Last year an opportunity was afforded of implementing generally the recommendations of the committee in regard to van boys, errand boys and messenger boys, employed in factories and in businesses carried on in docks, wharves and similar places, and their hours of work are now regulated by Section 98 of the Factories Act.
The main purpose of the present Bill is to carry out the recommendation of the Departmental Committee in regard to the other classes which formed the subject of their inquiry and of certain borderline cases to which they drew attention. The House will find those classes of employment set out in Clause 10 of the Bill. I should mention that the Bill applies to girls and boys in any of the occupations mentioned, and not to any young person whose hours are already regulated by Factories, Mines or Shops Acts. Clause 1 follows substantially Section 98 of the Factories Act. Under the Clause all young persons under 18 years of age are limited to 48 hours a week and the hours of young persons under 16 years of age are further reduced to 44 hours a week two years after the commencement of the operation of the Act. This interval of two years will give employers time to make suitable arrangements. I understand that, while there is general agreement about the Bill, there is some difference of opinion on this point, on which I shall be glad to reply, if I may by the leave of the House. But the difference between this provision of the Bill and the regulation made under the provisions to which I have referred is not as great as might appear. I would call the attention of the House to Sub-section (6) of Clause 1, which gives the Secretary of State very wide powers by regulation, if it should be found necessary, to emend the conditions. I should also mention that no overtime may be worked by young persons under 16, and that those between 16 and 18 may only work overtime under strict conditions, and for a maximum of 50 hours in a year. Provision is also made for intervals for meals and rest, for a weekly half-holiday, and for other things of that kind.
As regards administration, it is proposed, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, which we have endeavoured to follow as closely as possible, that the enforcement of the new legislation should rest with the local authorities, who are at present responsible for administering the Shops Acts, except in the case of van-boys employed by railway companies and young persons employed on premises closely connected with factories. In these cases the provisions are to be administered by the Factories Department of the Home Office, and in the case of young persons employed in mines and quarries the administration will be in the hands of the Mines Department.
Clause II, which is an important Clause gives an option to hotels and places of public entertainment, which may employ some young persons who are subject to the Shops Acts and some who would be subject to this Measure, to elect, that one or the other Act should apply to all their young employés. This is a provision which has been generally agreed between employers and employed in these particular trades. I should, however, mention that, if the provisions of the Shops Acts are adopted, that is to say, if they are asked for by the employers, the half-holiday for all young persons will commence at 1 p.m. under this Bill, and not at 1.30 as provided in the Shops Act.
I do not think I need go in detail into the Clauses of the Bill which contain the necessary provisions for administration, but there is an important point concerning Clauses 3, 4 and 5. They are not concerned with the unregulated occupations, which is the main purpose of the Bill, but they introduce certain amendments relating to shops. Clause 3, for example, makes an important amendment of the Shops Act by reducing the hours of young persons under 16 to 44 per week in two years' time, so as to bring the Shops Act into line with the Factories Act and this Bill. That is, therefore, an advance. In order to provide for elasticity at the Christmas period, when the pressure on shopkeepers is very heavy, Sub-section (2) of the Clause provides for the averaging of hours during the Christmas fortnight and its effect will be to allow a young person under 16 to be employed for 48 hours in one of the two weeks, provided that the hours worked be not

more than 40 in the other week. The reason is that this particular period is an extremely busy one for the shopkeeper, and is the period on which the smaller shops in particular rely to make their principal profit; while the public, at any rate in recent years, have got into the habit of doing a great deal of shopping in the short period before Christmas. I do not think that this provision will impose a hardship on the young employés, and it is one which does not infringe the main principles of the Bill.
Clause 4 contains another Amendment of the Shops Act, 1934, to deal with cases where a young person is employed both in a shop and in one of the occupations to which this Bill will apply. In reckoning the 44 or 48 hours permissible under the Shops Act, it provides that any of the occupations to which the Bill applies will be included. Clause 5 is designed to remove any doubts which might arise with regard to the position of young persons employed in retail trade from a factory, for example a bakery. This Clause makes it clear that the Shops Act will apply. That is the general explanation of the purposes of the Bill.
Perhaps it would be convenient if I announced at this stage that the Government, as at present advised, do not propose putting down any Amendments of substance, but on the Committee stage my right hon. Friend or myself will put down drafting Amendments in order to deal with the three Clauses to which I have made reference, dealing with the Shops Act merely for the purpose of symmetry. I think that is a purely drafting matter. Some observations have been made by a number of representatives of the party of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in another place. I gather that the Bill is regarded more or less as an agreed Measure. I appreciate that both hon. Gentlemen opposite and some of my hon. Friends on this side might have preferred the Bill to have gone further in certain particulars; but I am sure they desire to see the Bill passed as soon as possible, and it would be almost a physical impossibility, in the time available for legislation between now and the end of the Session, to widen the scope of the Bill. While I do not want this to be regarded in any way as a threat, I would say that I hope we shall have the Bill as it stands, otherwise it will be impossible


to get it through. I appreciate the agreement that has been obtained through unofficial channels on the general principles of the Bill. I am associated with the Bill now by virtue of the fact that I am attached to the Home Office, but I had some prior interest in the provisions of this Bill. My hon. Friend below the Gangway will recollect that when I was a private Member I put questions to the Home Secretary pressing for the introduction of a Bill of this character.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I want to say, on behalf of the Opposition, that we shall not do anything to retard the progress of this Measure into law. We welcome the main provisions of the Bill, because it makes an attempt to deal with the worst cases of exploitation of young people in this country. It must be remembered that this Bill deals with 220,000 young persons up to 18 years of age. Of these, 70,000 are employed at the moment in what are termed unregulated occupations. There is sufficient evidence in the report of the committee upon whose recommendations this Bill is based, to show that there has been very great exploitation of these young people. The Bill also extends the provisions of the Shops Acts to about 150,000 young persons under 16 years of age, and consequently there are a number of people in the country who are interested in the welfare of young persons who are also interested in the passing of this Measure.
Without saying too much this evening might I be allowed to make one or two friendly criticisms? First, the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me when I say that there will still be a goodly number of young persons still not covered by any law in relation to their hours of employment even when the Bill becomes law. Education authorities in this country and some other organisations, one with which hon. Gentlemen are connected—the Committee on Wage-earning Children for instance—have pointed out that boys and girls engaged in kitchens and cafes and in waiting and serving in connection with places providing food for the people, will still be outside the scope of this Measure.
The first criticism that I want to make is in relation to the transition from a 48-hour week to a 44-hour week of young persons under 16 years of age. The Bill

provides a transition period of two years, and we think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider whether that period should be reduced to one year. Let us remember that the Government of the day for some reason best known to themselves, while setting forth that this is a 48-hour week Bill for all young persons between 16 and 18 add 50 hours per annum overtime, which in effect means that it is not a 48-hour week at all, but a 49-hour week for these people. We welcome, of course, the provision whereby there is a 44-hour maximum per week for young persons up to 16 without any overtime at all; that is a great step forward in relation to this problem.
The next criticism is that we cannot understand how it comes about that in this Measure continuous employment of a young person is set down as five hours, whereas in the Factory Act it is 4½ hours. The period of continuous employment should not be more than 4½ hours in this Bill. We can see nothing at all in this Bill to limit either the total hours per day to be worked or the total daily period of employment. I confess that before I touched the problem of industrial legislation, I could not distinguish between the terms, "the total number of hours worked per day," and "the total period of employment per day," but there is a distinction, as hon. Gentlemen will see in a moment. The Bill does not lay down a maximum number of hours to be worked per day, and as far as we see the Bill, it is quite possible within the 48 hours, or 49 hours per week with overtime, to keep a young person on tap as it were from six o'clock in the morning until 8 or 10 o'clock in the evening by calling upon the young person to work three hours, with two hours off, and then to work another four hours, and to be off again, and then to be brought back again for an hour or two. That is a very reasonable criticism to make of that provision in the Bill.
We cannot understand how it comes about that these young persons are to be allowed to work up to 10 o'clock in the evening and to start at 6 o'clock in the morning. If there is anything deteriorating to the minds of young people, it is to be working late at night. I am certain that that is so. Like hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House, I am very interested in the increased educational


facilities provided in the evening for young persons. We rather regret therefore that the Government have not gone a little further on that score in favour of these young people. Then there is nothing here to prevent dividing up their work into spells. I know it is the practice in the employment of some people for the employer to call upon them at any time and put them aside for an hour or two as he desires. We do not think that that ought to be possible for young persons up to 18 years of age. In Lancashire where I live—I am a Lancashire man for this purpose——

Mr. J. Griffiths: Only for this purpose.

Mr. Davies: I could not of course deny my nationality. The Bill sets forth three quarters of an hour for meal times at midday. Where young persons go home from the factory or workshop to have their meal, three quarters of an hour is too short; it ought to be an hour at least. Then there is a provision whereby when a young person is employed on a Sunday that he shall have a week-day off in lieu. I am sure that I am right—there are hon. Gentlemen here connected with industry—in saying that in general a very much higher value is put on Sunday labour than on week-day. When a man is asked to work on Sundays, generally speaking he gets time and a half and in some cases double time rates of pay. I never got double time myself so I cannot speak with authority. I would ask the Noble Lord to see that the young person is not put at a disadvantage on that score in comparison with his own fellows employed in the same factory. Educational authorities and kindred organisations are very interested in the passage of this Measure. I have been able to convince some of them that this is not an educational Bill, but I want to point out to the House that the most progressive educational authorities are laying it down when they grant a certificate for beneficial employment under the recent Education Act that the total number of hours worked shall not exceed 36 per week. I would ask therefore whether the Noble Lord cannot do something to attune the Government's policy to that of the progressive education authorities. When I speak of progressive education authorities I mean Manchester and most of the Lancashire education authorities and of course Bolton.

Sir John Haslam: Hear, hear.

Mr. Davies: These education authorities lay it down that not one of these young persons shall be employed before seven in the morning or after 5.30 in the afternoon, and they stipulate that they will not grant a certificate of exemption for any child leaving school to work on Sundays, not because they are sabbatarian but because they want one day's rest in seven for all these children. We welcome this Bill as a great advance on the present position, but I sincerely trust that the Government will take note of the Amendments I have suggested, will welcome them and accept some of them at any rate in order to make the Bill a much more workable measure than it is at the moment.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Liddall: The House and the country generally will, I am sure, welcome almost any measure which has for its object the improvement of the conditions of the people, especially young people, but the House should at this stage be made aware of the great difficulty in which newsagents will be placed if the Bill becomes law. Most newspapers are delivered in time for breakfast, and the regularity of this service in and out of season is a triumph of organisation which passes almost unnoticed because the machinery hardly ever breaks down. The distribution of newspapers is mainly part-time employment and the peak hours are first thing in the morning and early in the evening. There has thus grown up the custom of part-time employment, and, until the passing of the Education and Children and Young Persons Acts, newspapers were delivered mostly by children of school age. The National Federation of Retail Newsagents has recognised the trend of the times and has loyally accepted the decisions of local authorities in the direction of curtailing the employment of school children, but the public, and I think I can say the majority of Members of Parliament, insist that their newspapers must continue to be delivered at an early hour, when they are thinking of their breakfast, so the newsagents have employed, not children, but more and more persons between the ages of 14 and 18 at such hours, usually between 6 and 8 in the morning, as have enabled them to work at their


major employment. If this Bill is passed in its present form, these young persons will be engaged for the full 44 hours in their major employment and, consequently, it will be illegal for them to continue their work of newspaper delivery. All the other distributive trades organisations recognise that the news agency trade has a distinct claim for special consideration and, while agreeing that the working hours of young persons should be regulated, I shall endeavour in Committee to move a considered Amendment which I hope the Home Secretary, the Opposition and the House will accept.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Mander: As far as we on these benches are concerned we heartily support the introduction of the Bill and will do everything to facilitate its progress on to the Statute Book. It has been a crying scandal for a number of years that no legislation of this kind has been brought in to shorten the long hours which have been worked by these young people. We shall do a good piece of work before the holidays if we can get the Measure on to the Statute Book. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) has made a reference to newspapers. Is it seriously suggested that anyone would desire to carry out what he has suggested at the expense of longer hours for young people? The resources of civilisation have not been exhausted, and I am sure that there are other ways, and that there are older people in this country who might be drawn upon for that work. I think we should make it perfectly clear that we cannot allow the claims of any trade to stand in the way of the claim of young people for shorter hours and the advantages which shorter hours will bring to them.
I regret that the Bill has not been introduced at a stage in the Session when we could have given serious consideration to it and moved Amendments. I believe there is a great deal of sympathy with the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) and that probably many hon. Members would try to persuade the Government to accept Amendments if time was available. Certainly my experience on the Factories Bill was that the Committees, including the Conservative Members,

was far ahead of the Government, and that sometimes the Government were left almost alone in their opposition to the proposals which were put forward. I know that they could not go further than persuasion, but I think that if we had a real opportunity we might be able to improve this Measure. I do not know whether the Noble Lord can give us any estimate of the number of young persons who are still left outside the ambit of the Measure. It will be interesting to know the number, but certainly the Bill fills a big gap. It will mean fresh life and better opportunities to hundreds and thousands of young people, and I heartily support the Second Reading.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Morgan: I should like to say straight away that I heartily welcome the Bill. I should welcome it more heartily had it been a Bill for 40 hours rather than the 48 and the 44 hours, because we cannot get away from the fact that it is bound up directly with our educational system. We pride ourselves that we have adjusted our educational system to the needs of industry, but there are one or two points to which I should like to direct the attention of the House. I cannot associate myself with what has been said by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall). I believe it is most injurious that these young people should have to work at six o'clock in the morning and at ten o'clock at night. We pass huge sums of money, quite rightly, for technical and evening institutions, and if these young people are to have any opportunity of taking advantage of these opportunities we must regulate their hours in a much more drastic way than the Bill does. If we are going to get a race of well-qualified young persons, we must give them every opportunity to take advantage of the facilities which the State provides.
Let me refer briefly to one or two points. The Home Secretary in Clause has power to allow extra time to be worked. I hope he will use this power very sparingly. I believe that not only that no young person should be employed before eight o'clock in the morning and after six o'clock at night, but that no young person under 18 should be expected to work overtime at all. There is one appeal I want to make. I hope that the local authorities, to whose care


these regulations will be submitted, will exercise their powers rigorously. I hope that steps will be taken under Clause 10, for example, to include all young people who are connected with waiting, kitchen or domestic work. Those are some of the things I would like to see done when the Committee stage is reached, and I propose to co-operate in order to try to strengthen the Bill in the way I have indicated.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Sorensen: I feel that I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without saying a few words on the Bill, seeing that if such a Bill had been on the Statute Book in my early days, I should have enjoyed the benefits of its Clauses. I was an errand boy engaged from eight o'clock in the morning until eight o'clock at night, in addition to another hour before eight o'clock in the morning and an hour after eight o'clock at night, so that, having spent some 14 hours a day in that way, can appreciate what has been the burden on hundreds of thousands of young people in this country. This Bill is very much overdue, for it ought to have been produced many years ago. As a matter of fact, in an earlier Parliament of which I was a Member, I had the privilege of introducing a Bill somewhat on these lines, but unfortunately it did not reach the Statute Book. I rejoice that that Bill, though in a somewhat truncated and altered form, has now come forward. We have to recognise that owing to the absence of such a Bill, hundreds of thousands of young people have had their young life robbed of a very large measure of the air, sunlight, leisure and recreation which is their inherent right. I was disappointed to find that one of the first voices raised on the other side was from an hon. Member who was apparently pleading that newspapers are more important than young life.

Mr. Liddall: That is nonsense.

Mr. Sorensen: We all enjoy our morning newspapers and one of the first things I do in the morning, at about a quarter past seven, together with a suitable lubricant, is to enjoy the news of the previous day. I am sure that even the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall), if it were a choice between having either an early morning newspaper or the abolition of all juvenile labour at that

hour, would be for the abolition of child and juvenile labour.

Mr. Liddall: We are not discussing child labour.

Mr. Sorensen: I am certain that the hon. Member's voice will be a very lonely one in the House, and I am sure that if he presses the Amendment which he intends to bring forward to a Division, very few hon. Members will follow him on that reactionary line. I trust that the Government will strongly resist any attempts to weaken the Measure. It does not go as far as I would like it to go, for I should have preferred to see a much more comprehensive measure laying down that the hours of all young people under 18 should be drastically limited. The only other note I want to strike is this. I want hon. Members opposite to recognise that most of them have lived, and still are living, comfortable lives, and that with the best intention in the world they cannot understand or appreciate the burden that rests upon so many of the young people of the working classes. I believe that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Morgan) was a teacher, and consequently he has had actual experience of the effect on young life of the toil which this Bill in some measure tries to eliminate.
I ask hon. Members opposite to consider the position of the young people who have attended school up to the age of 14 and who are suddenly plunged into the very different atmosphere of a shop, factory, hotel or other establishment where they are compelled to work for long dreary hours far from all opportunities of recreation in the open fields. Such a change often breeds cynicism and even worse. They feel that they are no longer counted as human souls but as ciphers and that their energies and abilities are being exploited. At school they have discipline, limited hours of study and a certain high standard of co-operation and team work but when they leave school they suddenly find that all of the standards previously held up to them have become unimportant and valueless. In order to minimise that contrast in the lives of so many young people I plead with hon. Members opposite to help to speed forward this Bill and to bring a measure of hope and encouragement to those for whom it is intended. I welcome the Bill; I am sorry that it does not go further but


I trust that we shall unite in giving this mild Magna Carta to the young people of our land.

11.8 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I join with those who have expressed regret that this Bill could not have been brought in earlier so that it might receive closer examination and where necessary Amendment. I, too, welcome the Bill. I think any of us who worked on the Factory Act could do nothing else, but I am rather amazed at some of the remarks made by the Opposition about hon. Members on this side proposing legislation of this type. I would like to point out to hon. Members opposite that if it were not for Members on this side, Bills of this kind could not get through the House. It is by our votes that this legislation is passed and not by the votes of the Opposition and much of what has been said on that point by the Opposition is nonsense.
I have one or two criticisms to make of the Bill and some difficulties to point out, but they are difficulties which can be overcome. For example, the hours for lorry boys laid down in the Bill do not coincide with those which are laid down for drivers. That is a difficulty which can be surmounted and I hope the Minister will pay the necessary attention to it. Another point is that apparently the local authority is to provide the inspectors in the case of boys employed on vans and lorries. Under the 1933 Act drivers' records are inspected by an inspector of the Ministry of Transport. I suggest that the same inspector should carry out these inspections with regard to boys. It is stupid to have different inspectors from different departments dealing with the same trade. It means a double hold-up and a double stoppage in the business. I hope the Minister will give some consideration to these suggestions. I welcome the Bill and hope it will bring some improvement to the youth of our generation.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I share the regrets which have already been expressed that a Bill of this kind is before the House at such a late hour and at such a late stage in the Session, for it raises a number of very important considerations. Nothing would have induced me to vote for the Bill, if a division were challenged, more definitely

than the speech of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall), to any legislation which would prevent three-quarters of the newspapers of this country from being landed on our breakfast tables at 7.30 in the morning with such danger to our digestive organs I should be very glad to lend my support. I entirely agree with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) that the Opposition will not impede the passage of the Bill, but I desire to draw the attention of the Noble Lord to what I believe to be one or two major defects in the Bill, which I hope will receive the consideration of the Government during the Committee stage of the Bill.
The Noble Lord made three statements. He said that the Bill filled in the last gap, but in saying that he cannot have been at the Home Office for very long. If he had, he would have known that it does not fill in the last gap, but that it fills in a gap very inaccurately indeed. He said that the main purpose of the Bill was to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. If the Bill had that effect and consequence, such criticisms as I am directing to it would not have been offered, but in fact it does not do that. The Departmental Committee recommended a limitation of a 10-hour over-all day, and so far as I can find there is no limitation within the Bill to the over-all day. Therefore, in that very material respect the Bill does not carry out the recommendation of the Departmental Committee. The Noble Lord also said the Bill follows substantially the Factories Act. It does nothing of the kind, and I hope the Noble Lord will attempt to bring it into conformity with the terms of the Factories Act.
I resent the idea that you can, by mere legal terminology, change a child into a young person. At 14 years of age at school a child is a child, and at 14 years of age at work, in some remarkable fashion a child becomes a young person. I do not deny that the Bill is an improvement on the present situation, but that only confirms my impression that if a limited Bill of this kind is in fact an improvement on the existing situation, how entirely unsatisfactory must the existing situation be. Within the Bill there is a complete absence of any limitation, either as to the working day or as to the overall day. The Bill provides for a 48-hour


week, and that is the only working limitation in the Bill. It provides for a limitation of work to 48 hours per week, but it provides no working limitation for the working day. It provides for an 11-hour interval in every 24 working hours, but it does not, as in the Factory Act, limit the over-all day except by a process of negation; that is to say that the extent to which the Bill provides for an 11-hour interval in 24 hours, by the process of negation it permits a 13-hour over-all day at 14 years of age. It permits a young person of 14 to start as early in the morning as six o-clock, and permits him, on another shift, it is true, to be about the premises until 10 o'clock at night.
The first point, therefore, to which I direct the Noble Lord's attention is that the Bill does not limit the number of working hours per day as is the case in the Factory Act. The Noble Lord said the Bill was in harmony with the Factory Act. I beg to draw his attention to these serious disparities. In the Factory Act there is a limitation of the over-all day of 11 hours per day, or, in other words, a provision for a 13-hour interval. This Bill reverses the position. There is a provision for a 11-hour interval, which negatively provides for a 13-hour over-all day. The Factory Act further limits the hours of work per day to nine. In this Bill there is no limitation of the hours of work per day. A young person of 14 may be at work at 6 o'clock in the morning and on another shift may be at work at 10 o'clock at night. In the Factory Act there is a much more restrictive provision. A young person from 14 to 16 may not be at work until 7 o'clock in the morning and may not be at work later than 6 in the evening. In the Factory Act a 44-hour week is provided for for young persons between 14 and 16 within one year of the passage of the Act. In this Bill it is two years.
Let me summarise. This Bill makes possible at 14 years of age a 13-hour over-all day. It makes it possible, therefore, for a young person at 14 to be about the occupation premises on one shift from 6 in the morning until 7 at night—a 13-hour over-all day, unless I have entirely misread the Bill. Let me be generous and assume a 12-hour over-all day, that is to say, from 7 in the morning until 7 at night. Let me further assume, as is the case with people in London, that a person lives an hour

from his place of work. That means that in order to arrive at the place of work at 7 in the morning he has to rise at 5.15 and leave home at 6. He leaves at 7 at night, gets home at 8, and by the time he washes and has tea it is 8.45. From that moment it is only 8½ hours to the time at which that child of 14 will have to rise once again to begin its weary task once more.
Nowhere in the dark annals of the industrial revolution is there to be found a darker passage of social history than is to be found in the pages of this Bill. We have no right to say that a young person, drugged asleep at a quarter-past five in the morning, ought to be wakened to go to work to grind profits for the Philistines. There is no opportunity for leisure, recreation, culture, education or any of the other many pursuits that are the rightful heritage of children of 14, 15 and 16 years of age. Although the Bill may have been welcomed as being an advance on present conditions I beg that the Noble Lord will see that the disparities between the terms of the Bill and the Factory Acts are so grave and wide that they call for substantial Amendments which will, I hope, be moved by the Government when the Bill gets into Committee.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have one or two questions to put to the Minister regarding the younger children who will be affected by this Bill. Under which flag will they be working when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament? Clause 3 runs counter to the suggestions in the Education Act, 1936, because these children between 14 and 15 years of age must of necessity be provided for in the year 1939 under the exemption Clauses of the Education Act. Clause 3 relates to the employment of young persons under 16. A child between 14 and 15 is under 16. Under which Act is that child to be governed? Whereas this Bill will allow the child to be worked for 48 hours a week in the first two years, and 44 hours afterwards, education authorities all over the country will, I am sure, insist that one condition of exemption shall be that the child shall work fewer hours than are specified in the Bill.
I was interested in the opposition that came from an hon. Member who suggested that newspaper boys should be exempted from the provisions of the Bill


and intimated that he intended to move an Amendment to that effect. I happen to be one of those grown-up newspaper boys of days gone by, and I suggest seriously that if you want to bring out the devil in a lad you should let him sell newspapers. It is not an economic advantage, even in a struggling home, to allow a boy to turn out early in the morning and late at night to sell newspapers, although it brings a few shillings into the home, because in the process the boy learns habits from which he should be saved. Never would I allow a child to be used to the economic advantage of the home in that way, because of the evil effects upon a child at that age. I want the Noble Lord to remember what is laid down in the Education Act, 1936. I take it that that Act will be a reality and that all educational authorities will be called upon in the exercise of their duties to take note of and to make, for any child between 14 and 15 years of age, opportunities for recreation and further education, and that those opportunities are to be the condition on which the child goes to work at 14 years of age.
You cannot lay down in one Act that it is the duty of a local education authority to safeguard the health and educational facilities of the child, and in another that that child can be worked all the hours that my hon. Friend the Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) proved could be worked under the Bill as it stands. I want to know who will administer this Act with respect to the different classes of children. I was not particularly concerned with the opposition regarding the newsboys, because I believe that the House will see how that difficulty, if there is one, will be overcome. I was perturbed when we heard the suggestion that the Bill needed amending in another direction because the hours of work of these children would not coincide with those of lorry drivers and the vans they were driving.
Again, I would point to the fact that in the Education Act, 1936, the purpose of the exemption Clauses was to attempt to prevent blind-alley occupations, but if a child is to be needed at that age, the individual who employs the child must prove to the education authority that it will be in the interests of the child, and the conditions must be such as to coincide, not with those of the lorry driver,

but with the well-being of the young person. If, as the hon. Member asked and the Minister suggests, the individual who is responsible for inspecting the cards under the Ministry of Transport is to be brought in to see that these children are not overworked, and if the local authority's inspector of factories and workshops is to be the inspector, he will be the authority to see that the exemption Clauses of the Education Act are carried out, with respect to the young person who has received the exemption.
Remember that although there are penal Clauses in the Young Persons Bill there are none in the Education Act, and that the only action that can be taken by the local authority if the conditions of the exemption are frustrated is the withdrawal of the certificate whereby the child works. I would like the noble Lord to enlighten us as to the position of the child between 14 and 15 years of age, because under the Education Acts no child under 15 should be allowed in any industry, unless under the exemption Clauses. I hope the Noble Lord can assure us that these children will be amply safeguarded. It seems to me that what we are discussing is children from the age of 15 onwards.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Ede: It seems cruel that this House should be put into the dilemma in which, if we attempt to move Amendments to the Bill, as the Noble Lord told us, necessary provisions might be modified, and the Bill not be able to pass this Session. It means that virtually the Bill is now in the form in which it will reach the Statute Book. If it reaches the Statute Book in that form, and we attempt next year, either by a Private Member's Bill on a Friday afternoon or in any other way, to get on to the Statute Book the Amendments which have been asked for this evening, we shall be told that an Act was passed in 1938 and it will be as well to see how it works before we pass any amending legislation.
I share the misgivings that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Clay Cross (Mr Ridley) with regard to the hours that may apparently be worked under this Measure. I do not share the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson), because I believe that the child between 14 and 15, if the Education Act,


1936, comes into force, will be in school unless he gets a certificate of exemption embodying the safeguards which my hon. Friend detailed. Therefore, the first conditions of the child's employment will be those embodied in the Education Act, 1936, and, where they are more powerful in safeguarding the child than the Clauses of this Bill, they, and not the regulations under this Measure, will be supreme.
It is, however, very unfortunate that the Government should have chosen this time for suggesting that children between 14 and 15 may be regarded as properly employed with no further safeguards than those of this Bill. It is all very well to choose areas like Lancashire and those in the neighbourhood of London, where conferences of local education authorities have been held and elaborate precautions have rightly been taken, within the Education Act, 1936, to safeguard the children; but there are other areas where no such conferences have been held, and where one has grave misgivings as to what will be the working of the Act of 1936. The provisions of this Bill will come to reinforce the arguments of the most reactionary members of local education authorities when they are considering the conditions under which they will grant exemptions.
I hope that, provided the Amendments in Committee are put forward with reasonable brevity and with a clear desire to improve the Measure, the Government will not turn a deaf ear to every argument purely on the plea of time. After all, the other House, even though it might not like our Amendments, has recently shown itself to be quite accommodating, and I have no doubt that a few smooth words from the Noble Lord would reconcile it to anything that we might desire to do. I hope that among the Amendments accepted by the Government will be one to include those young persons who are employed in the hotel and catering trade, and that the Government will agree at least to remedy this defect, which seems to me to be an outstanding defect in the Bill.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: I should not have risen but for the plea of the hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead (Colonel Sandeman Allen) that the hours of van boys should coincide with those

laid down in the Act of 1933 for the men with whom they work. The hon. and gallant Member, who pointed to all the beneficent Measures that came from the Government, aked at the same time that the van boy should be allowed to be employed for 5½ hours without a break, as against the 5 hours laid down in this Bill: that he should work a maximum of 11 hours a day on the lorry, as provided in the Act of 1933, with one day of 12 hours; and that his minimum period off duty should be 10 hours, as against the 11 hours proposed in the Bill. That is the beneficent gentleman who tells us that all these good Acts come from him and his sort. I want to put in a plea for the van boy, that at last he should be recognised as worthy of consideration and to ask the Government to resist any Amendment from the hon. Gentleman.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. Paling: I am in some doubt as to the meaning of Sub-section (7) of Clause 1. That Sub-section gives power to work overtime to the extent of 50 hours in a year or six hours in any one week. But it seems to me that there is a dangerous power in addition for another increase above that, subject to Regulations by the Secretary of State, without any limitation being laid down. It seems that if any business, or class of business, can make out a sufficiently pitiful case the Home Secretary may increase the permitted hours to any extent he thinks fit.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I want to raise a question regarding the administration of this law in Scotland, and to ask the Scottish Office representatives whether they would not consider strengthening the law in this respect in future. As far as I can gather, it is proposed that the administration in this matter shall be the Shop Hours Act administration, and that the Shop Hours Act inspectors should do this work. I feel that the administration of the Shop Hours Act has become to a great extent a farce. But I am not so much concerned about that as about the position of children. However slack the law may be in respect of adults, it should be much more tightly administered where children are concerned, and I ask that when this Bill becomes law the administration


should be improved upon, or the Shop Hours Act inspectors considerably increased if they are to do the work.
It is obvious that this Bill must pass substantially as it is, despite what the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said about the necessity for Amendments. We know there is practically no effective time left. If this Bill is to go through, it means that we can say nothing and that any serious Amendments must be rejected. The noble Lord is an old Parliamentarian, and when he was a private Member he spoke in defence of the rights of Members of this House. This may be an excellent Bill, but Parliament has a right to express criticism. We are not getting an opportunity to do that now. To foreign issues and some other issues Parliament seem's able to devote unlimited time, but Parliament is only justified in so far as it deals with the conditions of the common folk. Here is a Bill that deals with the conditions of those people. Hon. Members above the Gangway had some criticisms of this Bill, but proper time is not allowed for us to discuss them. This Bill is flung at us, and there is no time to amend it. The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), I remember, sat with me on a Factory Bill day in and day out, and I see that he occasionally writes about children's problems. Here we have a Bill that may well be the only Measure that we shall get for many years to come, and we ought to be able to mould it on the Floor of the House of Commons. Surely, that is not asking too much.
We are told that we must accept Hobson's choice, and that if we vote against the Bill we shall be limiting the possibility of this small amendment of the law. On the other hand, if we do not make this Amendment, we shall possibly lose our opportunity for many years to come. Therefore we have to grasp our opportunity. I would say to the Noble Lord, who is an old Parliamentary colleague and one whom I used to regard as being anxious at all times to safeguard our Parliamentary rights, that we are not being treated properly in this Bill, which so vitally affects the lives of our people. Although I feel that, in view of the limited time that is left to us, the Bill should be allowed to go through substantially as it is, I would ask the Noble

Lord to make use of the powers that he used to use on the Floor of the House in the inner circles, so as to ensure that, in a Bill which deals with the lives of the people, Parliament should be treated with proper respect.

11.42 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I feel that I ought to make some reply to the sympathetic appeal which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has just made. I trust that it will not be thought to be controversial if I point out that the circumstances are rather exceptional. During the 34 years I have been in the House of Commons I do not recollect 26 days having previously been given to foreign affairs, nor do I recollect so much attention having been given to certain subjects which are, in a sense, domestic to the House itself. I am not going to attempt to allocate the blame, but when the hon. Member speaks very truly of the disadvantage of having to legislate in a Bill of this importance at this hour of the night, it would be unfortunate to apportion blame to any section of the House. I fully appreciate the points which hon. Gentlemen opposite have properly indicated, and I should be lacking in respect even at this late hour if I did not deal, as far as I can, with the detailed points they have put to me. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be as pleased as I am with the general reception that has been given to this Bill.
I think I can deal with the points in tabloid form. I did not suggest that this Bill dealt with all cases of child labour, or, as I preferred to call it, youthful labour. It has been said in debate that a boy or girl of 14 is a child, but a boy or girl of 18 can hardly be described as a child. I said that it filled in a gap in legislation to deal with the hours of employment in what are generally known as the unregulated occupations, or which may be described in another way as, generally speaking, blind-alley occupations. I do not intend to reply to such matters as employment in agriculture and in domestic service, but I warn the House that, before any Government on this side of the House or on that side of the House attempted to deal with that vast subject, there would have to be a committee of inquiry. No Government could deal with the subject of domestic service in the more narrow and general sense of


the word, nor with hotels and private houses, without inquiry. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would find, as they have found in their experience of office, the same difficulties as this Government has found, that you cannot have a Measure of this kind without the fullest consultation with all the interests concerned, employers and employed. I assure hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House that the Government have in this Bill not only consulted all the principal organisations concerned, both employers and employed, but, in general, have obtained their assent to the provisions of the Bill.
May I also point out that this Bill was designed to implement the report of the Committee appointed to inquire into a specific matter? The terms of reference were very narrow. They refer to van boys, errand boys, warehouse boys, etc., also page boys, lift and other attendants in hotels and places of public entertainment. One of the criticisms made to-night is that there has been a serious deviation from the report of the committee. I can assure the House that that is not so. In so far as there have been deviations some have been in the direction desired by hon. Members. The Bill provides for a 44-hour week for young persons under 16. The committee recommended no such distinction. I admit that the daily period of employment is an important matter. It is quite true that the committee, with one member dissenting, recommended that it should be limited to 10 hours a day. No provision is included, and no such provision was made in the Shops Act, 1934, or Section 98 of the Factories Act, which deals with messenger and van boys. This Bill does follow Section 98 of the Factories Act, the only Section dealing with employments analagous to those dealt with in this Bill.

Mr. Ridley: Surely the Noble Lord would not deny that the vast majority of young persons covered by the Factories Act are limited to an 11-hour over-all day and this Bill does not provide for that?

Earl Winterton: They are not. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the persons who come under the Factories Act in employments analogous to those dealt with under this Bill are not so limited. He is thinking of the indoor workers, a different category altogether. There is really no comparison between the two. I should like to point out the importance of

Sub-section (6) of Clause 1. I would ask the House to read the Sub-section and they will see that it gives very wide powers to the Secretary of State. In fact, some of the employers' associations in the first instance might easily have taken objection to these wide powers. I will give an undertaking on behalf of the Home Secretary—surely it is one which could be given on behalf of any Home Secretary—that if he found it necessary to use these powers, or public opinion is such as to call his attention to the need for using these powers, he would certainly use them.
With regard to the question of overtime, it is true that the Shops Act and Section 98 of the Factories Act limit the total amount of overtime that may be worked by young persons, but so does this Bill. It is limited in each case to 50 hours a year. It is the distribution of these hours which varies. The explanation of the differences is to be found in the varying requirements of the different types of occupations concerned. There is an abnormal pressure of work in shops at special seasons, such as Christmas and sales, but I do not think the difference is as great as is thought.
I was asked a question in regard to a Sub-section which, I can well imagine, at first sight appears to give a dangerous power of variation to the Home Secretary. That is Clause 1 (7). I can only give an assurance that any application for increasing the hours of overtime that may be worked will be critically examined before any regulations are brought forward. Such regulations have to be laid before Parliament. They could not in any case affect the maximum number of hours overtime in a year. I was asked what would happen if a local education authority laid down a set of hours which boys and girls up to 15 were allowed to work and those hours conflicted with the Bill. It does not alter the powers of local authorities in the slightest degree. A young person can only work up to the period laid down by the local education authority as being in all respects reasonable. A point was raised as to the hours of van boys. I shall be glad to look into the matter again. At this late hour I prefer not to deal with it but it is not as simple as the hon. Member thinks. The House took very well my hint that it might be physically impossible to get the Bill through if wide extensions are sought. I do not wish to suggest that


it would not be possible to accept any Amendment, but I would make an appeal to hon. Members, in asking for a Second Reading without a Division, to restrict discussion on Amendments when we come to the Committee stage. While we may not go as far as many hon. Members would like, we shall have taken a notable step forward, in which all Governments and parties have been engaged, in the work of improving the conditions of employment of young persons.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Lieut.Colonel Kerr.]

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

11.54 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
A Bill of this kind is passed annually to confirm the Customs Resolutions of the Manx legislature and to make modifications in the law relating to Isle of Man Customs administration similar to those made in respect of United Kingdom Customs administration by Acts passed since the date of the last Isle of Man (Customs) Act.
The Isle of Man has a separate financial existence, and in particular is completely free in practice as to the Customs and Excise Duties which it levies, subject to confirmation of Customs (but not Excise) Duties by the Imperial Parliament. It would be unprecedented for Parliament to alter the Customs Duties imposed by the Manx Legislature. The main Customs Resolutions are passed by the Tynwald shortly after the Imperial Budget is opened, and it is customary to pass the annual Isle of Man (Customs) Bill through the House of Commons as soon as practicable after the Finance Bill of the year has left this Chamber. I hope that at this late hour it is not necessary for me to give any further explanation, but if hon. Members desire any information I shall be prepared to give it.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Lieut.- Colonel Kerr.]

LIMITATION BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

11.56 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It is my misfortune at this late hour to have the duty, and indeed the privilege, of introducing a Bill of very great complexity and of not inconsiderable importance. I shall be as brief as possible but it is necessary that the Bill should be properly explained. It is not a simple Bill and I feel to some extent a parental responsibility because I served on the Law Revision Committee upon whose report it is based. The maxim is as old as Justinian, that it is in the interests of the State that there should be an end of action, that a period should be set beyond which the right of action shall not be in force. The trouble is that at the present time the Statute Book is literally bespattered with different Acts allowing different periods of limitation in respect of different causes of action. It was in these circumstances that in 1934 the Law Revision Committee was asked to consider and report whether the Statutes and Rules of Law relating to limitation of action required amendment. They reported in 1936 and their report was laid before Parliament in December, 1936, and this Bill was introduced in another place last month in order to do something to clear up the confusion which was found to exist in the law. It concerns no fewer than 20 different Acts, six of which are repealed, and, as the committee reported, they found the law in a state of almost unbelievable chaos and confusion. It is not so much the fault of lawyers because many of these Acts date back to the time of James I, and Parliament has from time to time passed Acts dealing with limitation.
When one adds to that that in addition to having these different periods of limitation for actions there are also different types of disability which enable people to prolong the period within which they are able to bring an action—for example, lunatics, people oversea and people in


prison, who can postpone the moment when they have to commence their action to the date when the disability ends, it will be realised that this confusion of circumstances results in a situation of great difficulty. If you take the Real Property Limitation Act of 1833, and the Civil Procedure Act, 1833, relating to Common Law actions, and two Acts of 1833 and 1874 relating to real property, the absurdities which result from the present state of the law can be illustrated by two examples. An action for slander can only be brought within a period of two years, but within six years if the words are actionable, per se. An action for one kind of trespass can be brought within four years, but there are other types of trespass which can be brought within six. There are cases, for example, of the law of conversion of property where successive conversions expand the period of time in which it is possible to bring an action in respect of different conversion. The law relating to specialty is different as between different forms of specialty, and there again there is considerable confusion.
I will try to telescope within a short space what the different portions of the Bill attempt to do. By Clauses 1 and 2, we are endeavouring to impose a uniform period of six years in respect of ordinary Common Law actions, but for specialties a uniform period of 12 years, and there are necessarily exceptions, such, for example, as penalties, where there is to be a uniform period of two years. Clause 3 deals with the conversion point which I have mentioned, and Clauses 4 to 7 deal with a limitation of actions in respect of land, and they consist mainly of tidying up provisions. Within those Clauses will be found not so much new law as a codification of the existing laws, so that, at any rate, it is possible to find out what the law is within the limits of one Bill. I will not say that there are no alterations in the law, but perhaps the main alteration to which it is necessary to call attention is that in Crown actions and actions by eleemosynary corporations, the period of limitation is reduced from 60 year to 30 years, except in the case of the foreshore, where the period remains at 60 years.

Major Milner: Against the Crown or for the Crown?

The Solicitor-General: In favour of the Crown and in the interests of the public.

A right which is conferred in the Crown to sustain an action for 60 years in the case of the foreshore is a right which could be exercised only in the interests of the general public. All other actions are ceased at 12 years, and there are very few changes in that part of the Bill. Clause 18 deals with mortgage debts, and the chief change made there is that it extends the limitation period of 12 years applicable to mortgage debts to mortgages on personalty, whereas at present mortgages on personalty enjoy an unlimited period. Clauses 19 and 20 extend the general exclusion from all limitations to actions to recover money from trustees and executors, and in the case of personal estates, make a similar exemption. They make a limitation of 12 years in the case of claims on personal estate, whereas at present there is a limitation of 12 years for legacies and six years for intestacies.
Clause 21 is one which may perhaps excite a certain amount of interest and controversy. As the House probably knows, at the present time an action against a public authority can in general be brought only within six months. It is proposed to extend that period to 12 months, but that is subject to the provisions of Clause 22, which deals with disabilities, to which I will refer in a moment. The combined effect of the new Clauses will be to extend the period within which actions may be taken against a public authority from six months to 12 months, and for the first time to allow the disabilities period to run against the public authority.
Part II deals with disabilities. Disabilities, of course, afford extensions of time for bringing an action, as in such cases as infancy, lunacy and so on. By the Bill we propose to abolish an existing disability in the present law which is the subject of a great deal of most confusing case law, as any lawyer who has looked into the point will testify. That is the disability which arises from the plaintiff being beyond the seas. There is a tremendous amount of learning as to what exactly constitutes being beyond the seas, and that particular disability will be abolished by the Bill.

Mr. Foot: Does that mean that in future the time will run against the person who is beyond the seas as if he were in the United Kingdom?

The Solicitor-General: Six years.

Mr. Pritt: The question is more important in the case of a plaintiff than in the case of a defendant because it prevents a plaintiff serving a writ on him. Is it intended to abolish that?

The Solicitor-General: I think not. The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that it will be impossible on a Bill of this complexity for me to deal with Committee points at the present stage.

Mr. Pritt: I was only asking the hon. and learned Gentleman to deal with something which he himself mentioned. I was not bringing forward any new point.

The Solicitor-General: I plead guilty to perhaps greater elaboration in dealing with the Clauses than either the hour or a Second Reading speech perhaps justify, but what I really wished to do was, in relation to what I think is the only Clause which is of any contentious character, to explain the effect that the extension of the disability period or of the codification and alteration of the law as to disabilities would have upon a public authority. For the first time persons under a disability will be able to bring actions against a public authority within 12 months of the cesser of the disability. There is one exception, which will be found in Clause 22, paragraph (d). That is in the case of a child or lunatic which is in the custody of its parents, in which case the limitation will run only from the accrual of the right of action, that is to say, it will not be able to count an extension of the period from the date of the cesser of the disability, the reason being that in such cases the parent who has the custody might be expected to bring the action.
Clause 23 deals with the knotty subject of acknowledgment and part payment. Among other things it makes an alteration in the law as regards the implied promise to pay. Clause 24 allows an acknowledgment to be made by an agent or to an agent. At present it is permissible in some cases and not in others. Clause 25 mainly reproduces the existing law, except Sub-section (5) dealing with acknowledgment of debt, where there is a slight alteration of the law. Clause 26 deals with fraud. At the present time in fraud cases where there has been fraudulent concealment of a cause of action the time does not run until the fraud has been discovered. Where the action itself

is based on fraud, the possibility is—and I say no more than that—that, in equity actions the time does not run, and, in actions which derive from the Common Law, the time does run. That may or may not be the case. There is a good deal of learning on both sides, but in the Bill both cases have been assimilated and the distinction has been abolished. Similarly, the distinction in regard to mistake between equity actions and common law actions has been abolished.
Clause 27 re-enacts the Arbitration Act, and Clauses 28 and 29 reproduce existing provisions. Clause 30 may be of interest to hon. Members and especially to hon. and learned Members who have frequently wished that actions by and against the Crown should be put on the same footing as actions between subjects. It will be seen that in the Bill we have gone some way to meet that point of view. Under the Bill, proceedings by and against the Crown are to be treated in exactly the same way as other actions, the only exceptions being actions in respect of Customs and Revenue duties. Those exceptions are not of as much importance as might appear, because in the case of Customs duties most of the remedies are by penalty, where there is a fixed period and in the case of Revenue duties the assessment period is limited.
I think that covers, in substance, the whole framework of this very complicated and difficult Bill. The Bill represents years of work by the Law Revision Committee and, now that I no longer grace the proceedings of that body I may be permitted to express the great debt of gratitude that we owe to the committee for the entirely gratuitous work which people of distinction and of very full lives devote to the task of law revision. In this instance I may be permitted to add, and I am sure the Committee themselves would be the first to acknowledge it, that a great deal of the scholarship and learning which appear in this Bill and have made this Bill possible is due to the researches of a young gentleman in the Parliamentary Counsel's office, Mr. Kent, without whose labours the Law Revision Committee would have been at a great loss to find time in which to get through the work. It that work he went far beyond the ordinary functions allotted to him. I hope the House may feel that the result, if it is a monument which requires a good deal of understanding, is a monument


to his labours that will do something to clarify the law and to bring light where at present light is needed.

12.15 a.m.

Major Milner: I am sure the House is grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the way in which he has expounded this Bill. I hope the majority of hon. Members understood his rather technical disquisition, but they must have found it extremely difficult to do so. While expressing our indebtedness to the Solicitor-General for his explanation, I wish to add a protest against the bringing in of a Bill of this complicated, important and far-reaching description at this stage in the Session and at this hour. There cannot be any particular hurry about dealing with this matter. The Committee, on whose deliberations the Bill is founded, reported in December, 1936, and the Government, presumably, have been sitting on the Bill ever since that date.

12.16 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to intervene. It appears to me from some consultations which I have been able to make, that this Bill, if it did receive a Second Reading, might prove highly controversial and that the Committee stage might occupy a great deal of time which, it is clear, the Government have not at their disposal at this period

of the Session. It would not be fair to pretend that there is any particular urgency for passing this Measure now, and I think the right course to adopt would be to adjourn the Debate. I, therefore, move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1936.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1937, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services over the net Expenditure is £312,975 18s. 4d., namely:

£
s.
d.


Total surpluses
920,322
14
3


Total Deficits
607,346
15
11


Net Surplus
£312,975
18
4

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.

SCHEDULE.


No. of Vote.
Navy Services, 1936, Votes.
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Reciepts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet
Services.
88,734
0
7
—
—
6,375
9



2
Victualling and Clothing
—
—
1,800
12
10
8,459
3
7


3
Medical Establishments and Services.
15,446
5
10
—
—
12,874
5
0


4
Fleet Air Arm
—
—
—
—


5
Educational Services
2,662
16
9
—
—
1,789
14
7


6
Scientific Services
—
—
8,212
16
10
9,211
7
11


7
Royal Naval Reserves
—
59
17
1
25,781
15
4
—


8
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc,:















Sec. 1. Personnel
51,148
9
4
—
—
14,897
15
11



Sec. 2. Matériel
—
117,891
9
9
111,190
6
8
—



Sec. 3. Contract Work
255,222
3
9
—
—
18,970
15
9


9
Naval Armaments
—
—
453,480
2
5
10,792
17
7


10
Works, Buildings, and Repairs.
—
—
128,053
16
6
5,356
7
6


11
Miscellaneous Effective Services.
39,484
6
8
—
—
16,660
1
5


12
Admiralty Office
26,275
18
7
—
—
1739
13
0


13
Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine) Officers.
—
—
58,652
19
2
1,201
17
11


14
Non-Efiective Services (Naval and Marine), Men
—
1,252
19
7
15,117
14
11
—


15
Civil Superannuation.Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities.
—
70
5
1
9,703
0
4
—


—
Balances irrecoverable and Cliams abandoned.
9,098
2
11
—
—
—




488,072
4
5
119,274
11
6
811,993
5
0
108,329
9
3




Total Deficits
£607,346
15
11
Total Surpluses
£920,322
14
3




Net Surplus
£312,975 18 4

Resolved, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[captain Wallace.]
11.Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1937, that the aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army Services over the net Expenditure is £1,686,011 os. 2d., namely:

£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
1,948,499
1
3


Total Deficits
262,488
1
1


Net Surplus
£1,686,011
0
2

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.

SCHEDULE.


No. of Vote
Army Services, 1936, Votes
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, etc., of the Army
—
—
116,360
10
5
490,352
3
6


2
Territorial Army and Reserve Forces.
—
1,620
12
10
56,910
16
3
—


3
Medical Services
31,357
5
5
—
—
18,354
15
7


4
Educational Establishments
1,608
1
3
—
—
4,980
2
4


5
Quartering and Movements
2,501
6
6
—
—
20,669
6
6


6
Supplies, Road Transport, amd Remounts.
48,473
0
8
—
—
58,312
14
7


7
Clothing
65,601
15
8
—
—
29,375
18
8


8
General Stores
—
—
57,564
19
3
54,621
15
9


9
Warlike Stores
—
—
635,844
17
4
84,901
19
4


10
Works, Buildings, and Lands.
—
—
244,916
3
2
19,388
7
4


11
Miscellaneous Effective Services.
69,141
9
3
—
—
21,640
14
2


12
War Office
18,175
12
7
272
5
0
—
—


13
Half-Pay, Retired Pay, and other Non-effective charges for Officers.
—
—
16,596
0
8
3,535
10
3


14
Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Noncommissioned Officers,
Men, and others.
14,439
14
3
—
—
13,642
15
8


15
Civil Superannuation.Compensation, and Gratuities.
6,731
18
5
—
—
529
10
6


—
Balances irrecoverable and Claims ababdoned.
2,564
19
3
—
—
—




260,595
3
3
1,892
17
10
1,128,193
7
1
820,305
14
2




Total Deficits
£262,488
1
1
Total Surpluses
£1,948,499
1
3




Net Surplus
£1,686,011 0 2

Resolved, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[captain Wallace.]
III. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1937, that the aggregate Expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air Services over the net Expenditure is £704,403 8s. 1d., namely:

£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
758,189
17
8


Total Deficits
53,786
9
7


Net Surplus
£704,403
8
1

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services.

SCHEDULE.




Deficits.
Surpluses.


No. of Vote.
Air Services, 1936, Votes.
Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure. 
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, etc., of the Royal Air Force.
—


—


103,915
1
8
5,990
14
7


2.
Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transportation.
—


—


1,948
6
1
6,486
6
1


3
Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services).
—


—


39,241
16
4
34,732
13
8


4
Works, Buildings, and Lands.
—


—


187,125
4
3
2,484
0
1


5
Medical Services
20,607
18
0
—


—


12,092
19
5


6
Technical Training and Educational Services.
—


589
14
10
6,549
18
2
—




7
Auxiliary and Reserve Forces.
—


37
6
11
102,082
4
3
—




8
Civil Aviation
—


28,920
5
0
187,044
5
3
—




9
Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services.
—


—


19,408
12
9
3,953
13
10


10
Air Ministry
—


—


12,174
11
11
3,471
7
2


11
Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-effective Services.
—


1,357
8
8
29,488
2
2
—




—
Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.
2,273
l6
2
—


—


—






22,881
14
2
30,904
15
5
688,978
2
10
69,211
14
10




Total Deficits


£53,786
9
7
Total Surpluses


£758,189
17
8





Net Surplus
£704,403
8
1

Resolved, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Captain Wallace.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the statement of the estimated income and expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1938, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 9th day of May, 1938, be approved."—[Colonel Llewellin.]

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us some explanation of the purpose of the Travers' Foundation?

12.21 a.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: There are one or two questions which I should like to put, because certain of the property with which

the Trust is concerned is situated in my constituency. I am anxious to know what may happen to the Scremeston Colliery, near Berwick-on-Tweed. Because of the interest which the Greenwich Hospital authorities have had in this colliery it has been enabled to keep going during periods of bad trade. Four or five years ago there was really great danger that it might not be possible for the colliery to carry on. Now that the Coal Bill has been passed this liability, or asset, has been taken away from the trustees and the Coal Commission will step in, and I wish to know what the future prospects will be, because it was undoubtedly due to the action of the trustees that the men were kept at work in the pits. I should like to feel assured that the same consideration will be shown by the Commission.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): I hardly think the Minister can answer


about that. That deals with a question of policy which has been decided by the House.

Sir H. Seely: I should like to know whether any consideration has been given to the matter by the trustees, who own a great deal of property there, and with conditions changing so much one does not want to see any risk of the place becoming, as it nearly did in 1935, a distressed area. I am not trying to attack Greenwich Hospital, or the Civil Lord, but although the property is no doubt well looked after I think we should have some little information as to what the future position may be.

12.24 a.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Colonel Llewellin): To answer first the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher): The Travers' Foundation, which is administered by Greenwich Hospital under the Act of 1892, is an old foundation set up by a Mr. Samuel Travers about 200 years ago and known as the Naval Knights of Windsor, with funds to provide pensions now of £75 a year to retired naval officers and we are budgeting for 29 of those pensions this year. As the hon. Baronet has said, the colliery at Scremeston was more or less saved by the action of the Greenwich Hospital. At any rate, we did put the company on its feet by taking far less royalties than is ordinarily the case. We enabled some 250 men to be employed in the hon. Baronet's constituency. What the Commission will do when it takes over the royalties I do not know; and of course I shall not be responsible for any action of theirs. We are giving the local authority every assistance in getting land, and water facilities. These are in connection with a new housing scheme which, I am glad to say, the local authority is building. With regard to the fire there were some farm buildings which were burned down. I was inspecting this property last October and I saw the actual farm buildings, which have been rebuilt. They are a very good and up-to-date part of what I think is a very well-managed property.

Resolved,
That the statement of the estimated income and expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1938, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 9th day of May, 1938, be approved.

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

12.27 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is brought forward to enable the trustees of the British Museum to accept a certain bequest made to them by the late Lord Rothschild, who was for many years a keen collector of zoological specimens. Fifty years ago his insect collections were housed in a cottage at Tring. By the time of his death his collection had grown and become one of the greatest interest and value, including many rarities and unrivalled collections in some branches of zoology. By a codicil to his will, which is printed as a schedule to the Bill, Lord Rothschild left his zoological museum to the trustees of the British Museum, together with all the collections and objects which it contained.
The trustees are naturally anxious to accept this munificent bequest, but before they can do so they require the authority of Parliament. The trustees, of course, receive bequests from time to time and accept them under their general powers, but in the present case statutory authority is necessary because the bequest is subject to the condition that the legacy will be accepted as an annexe of the British Museum and the Tring Museum used in a modified form for zoological research. Under the original Act of incorporation of the British Museum it was provided that the collections were to be kept in one general repository, and an amending Act had to be passed when part of the collection was transferred to South Kensington in 1878, and again when part was transferred to Hendon in 1902. Further statutory authority is required to enable the trustees to keep the new bequest at Tring. It is the purpose of the present Bill to confer that authority.
There is one point which, despite the lateness of the hour, it is my duty to mention to the House. Since this Bill was printed it has been brought to our notice by the solicitors to Lord Rothschild's executors that Estate Duty will probably be payable on the freehold property at the zoological museum at Tring and the laboratory premises close by. The trustees of the Museum will have to


pay it. The point would have been mentioned in the Financial Memorandum if I had been aware of it in time, and I would ask the House to accept my apologies. I cannot say what the amount will be but it will not be large. There is no question of payment of any Estate Duty on the collection itself.
This collection will be open to the public free of charge, just as the collections are at present. While this collection comes under the general powers of the Trustees of the British Museum to lend specimens to other museums under local authorities, it was Lord Rothschild's wish that this collection should not be broken up, but should remain at Tring where it has a very great value in its completeness, so that it is not proposed that specimens should be lent out of the Tring collection, though of course certain specimens will be transferred to the South Kensington Museum. But it will be within the province of the Trustees to lend specimens out of the South Kensington Museum. I apologise to the House for having spoken so long on this Bill, but I thought that in view of the munificence of this bequest it would be right to pay tribute to it by making these remarks.

12.32 a.m.

Mr. Markham: There is an old adage that one should never look a gift horse in the mouth, but I am sure that does not apply to myriads of fleas and bugs, to squads of squids, platoons of baboons and to all the other things which go to make up the greatest Noah's ark which has ever been in private hands. It is true that this is a magnificent collection, and a magnificent gift for which the nation as a whole will echo the words which have just come from the Treasury bench. I think, however, that it would be inadvisable to let a Bill of this magnitude go through without a full understanding of what we are doing. The Bill, in fact, sets up a new national museum. just as the British Museum of Natural History was set up under the old British Museum Act and became a separate museum, so this in time will probably become a separate national research museum. Therefore, I think we have to be very careful what is in this Bill and what is out of it. Regarding what is in it we have had a statement from the Minister that the collections at Tring will be kept intact except in so far as they are to be exchanged

with the British Museum, and he has said that it was the wish of Lord Rothschild that the collection should be kept intact. I regret I cannot read that into the extract of the codicil of the will which is given in the Schedule. In the codicil there is simply a reference to the "type" specimens which it says may be transferred to the British Museum as the Trustees might decide and no reference is made to duplicates. I was sorry that the Minister did not give any indication that the loan of duplicates to provincial institutions would be permitted and I hope that we shall at a later stage have someing in this Bill which will allow the loan of duplicates to provincial institutions.
With regard to what is out of the Bill, I welcome the Minister's assurance that the exhibited collections will continue to be open to the public, but I wish he had made some statement to the effect that they would be better displayed. At present the exhibited collections are shown in very poor cases, lighting is bad and reflections make it almost impossible to see many of the exhibits. I sincerely hope that the national authorities will see to it that these collections are now properly housed. The amount which ought to be spent on rearrangement, re-casing and re-lighting is something far beyond that covered in the financial arrangements of this Bill. The amount allocated will not apparently exceed £5,000 a year and how an adequate staff, and an adequate reorganisation are to be got from that sum I do not know. I hope that in accepting this collection, as the nation is doing from the executors of Lord Rothschild, we shall see to it that not only is it adequately housed, but that the casing and equipment are good and that the public galleries are made first class.
Finally, I would make an appeal for an opportunity at least once a year for a general discussion of museum and art gallery problems.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): This Bill is very limited. I do not think we can go into that.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I understand that this collection is rather a live-stock collection of fleas and bugs and things like that.

Captain Wallace: It is dead-stock.

Mr. Davidson: That is all right then.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Waterhouse.]

BRITISH MUSEUM [Money].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order Now 69.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable the Trustees of the British Museum to accept a certain bequest made to them by the late Lord Rothschild, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the sums necessary to defray any increase of expenditure in respect of the British Museum which is attributable to the operation of the said Act." (King's Recommendation signified.)—[Captain Wallace.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 192o to 1934, on the application of the Hessle Gas Company, which was presented on the 30th day of June and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Croydon Gas Company, which was presented on the 30th day of June and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Chorley, which was presented on the 30th day of June and published, be approved."—[Mr. Cross.]

HIRE PURCHASE BILL.

Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Rhys Davies.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Application of Act.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 6, after "apply," insert "in relation."

12.38 a.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Practically all these Amendments are drafting Amendments, but where it would appear to hon. Members that they are something more I can assure them that everything new in these Amendments has been agreed between all parties concerned. If necessary I will explain any of the Amendments to the House.

Mr. H. G. Williams: As one who took an active part in the Committee and Report stages, I would like to support what the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BILL.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eighteen Minutes before One o'Clock.